Ottawa - Where do you get your news from? poll

^^^^^^^^^^^
Brainwashed poster.

The audacity of you lecturing a Canadian Pea about the bias of the CBC in one post and stating that YOUR source is those that are IN the convoy. “Stripped of as much personal opinion as I am capable of stating”?!? Seriously, sit the fuck down.

Here is some “boots on the ground” info for you lol.

youtu.be/YbmiKG56zuw

 
It is hard to keep up with these threads so thought I might post this in both threads as they now seem to be over lapping.

I notice that some of the conversation has turned to vaccine effectiveness amongst all the other tangents.

It is all a learning curve , for me anyway.

It is not unlike a situation where I have found myself in before.

I used to think that science was absolute but I found that the devil is in the detail . ( I learned this whilst home - researching a post viral health condition over many years )

There are shades of grey

I have only taken a quick glance at vaccine effectiveness but if I were to take a more serious look ( which I am not ) then I would take the following factors into consideration -

Epidemiological data from various countries .

Comparison of above data and why variations may occur -

In an earlier post I linked to data including tables that showed 2 shot vaccine effectiveness in the UK was lower than that reported by the US .
The UKHSA ( UK Health Security Agency )showed roughly 40% ish effectiveness compared to 60% ish from the CDC. ( US Centre for Disease Control )
A potential reason for this could be because the UK used both Astra Zeneca and Pfizer ( confirmed ) in comparison to the US which used Moderna and Pfizer ( at least I think so but have not double checked )

Other things to take into consideration might be -

Different vaccine types

Timescales of waning immunity

Number and timing of shots .

Covid variants as vaccine efficacy for Delta was higher than for Omicron.

Immunosuppressed individuals

Rates of infection for different areas .


Through previous personal experience of home research there a few things I picked up along the way including -

Taking into consideration the ranking of a journal. Some are more respected and high profile than others. They are rated regarding their impact factor. Even high ranking journals sometimes have a controversial history on certain subjects.

I also came to realise that any meta analysis is only as good as the original articles which reviewers may take at face value. If the original articles were unreliable or biased in the first place than the conclusion of any meta analysis may reflect this and could be potentially flawed leading to misleading conclusions . Decent meta analysis should highlight any weaknesses and issues concerned. In my experience this can vary.

The devil in the detail is to be found in between the abstract and the conclusion of the article. There have been times when headers don’t always stand up to closer scrutiny.

Going off topic slightly -

The type of misleading research that I am most familiar with has thankfully since been discredited due it’s poor practices .
Unfortunately the same discredited researchers have turned their attention to Long Covid.

I have huge respect for the patients/ families (affected by this particular post viral illness )- dubbed as citizen scientists who have collaborated with decent medical/scientific researchers to co-author papers in order to get them published in peer reviewed journals . Amongst other researchers, they have contributed to altering particular Health guidelines in the UK and elsewhere. The new guidelines have turned the old ones upside down.
This could also influence Long Covid health guidelines in the future due to their similarity.

As a non-scientist I have come across information ( post viral ) that I found difficult to understand and wanted to learn more about clinical findings . As such I contacted a few biomedical researchers to ask if they could help explain things. I have been so lucky because they took the time and trouble to help.

Going back to Covid , things are emerging and constantly changing medically, scientifically and politically. Information is fast moving and often contradictory .

Online abuse is rife.

Hate speech / crimes online have increased.

I am from the UK but I read that New Zealand has a campaign to encourage people to stop and think before they press send.
They try to show people that disagreement can occur and strong views expressed without resorting to personal attacks. Winding back online rage.

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/11/what-would-your-mother-say-new-zealand-urges-citizens-to-wind-back-online-rage


I might just hide under the duvet now !

Doing “home research” where you’re comparing subsets of data, related or not is dicey at best, and then to combine that data from disparate studies can and usually does produce misleading or unreliable results.

While science is “fluid”, ever evolving, updating —no amount of “home study or personal research/compilation of data is going to be accurate for the masses.

Neither is across the board, no exceptions, mass mandated medical treatment. Especially given the new science and most recent information that has come out about who is most and least at risk. And the new science about the effectiveness of natural immunity.



Home study, personal research/compilation of data, along with discussing with your own doctor IS going to be accurate for your personal decisions.

TOTALLY agree. One of the guys, his OWN COLLEAGUES and employer made a statement saying they did NOT agree with his position.  They're professional people, too, and that is totally telling to me.  If his own employer (a COLLEGE) denounces what he says, then that's good enough for me.  I don't NEED to go searching any more.