Quote:
Originally Posted by
RandBlade
Your criticism was absolutely lame. Just because you flail about with bad arguments doesn't mean I need to "understand" your bad arguments. I understood them, I rejected them because they were wrong, they remain your bad arguments that I reject 100%.
Go on, please summarize my criticism of his claims wrt the evidence in light of the discussion at hand. Then we can see whether or not you have read and understood.
Quote:
No you have claimed - several times - that the reasoning is flawed. You are wrong. You have no PROOF that you are right and I and everyone else are wrong.
The reasoning is flawed because it is based on point estimates that are not supported by the evidence from trials, and are cast into doubt by real world evidence, and presume no change over time.
Quote:
Models have been made public and I gave you a link that explicitly shows it and its reasoning.
Go on, post a screenshot of the models for this strategy under different scenarios.
Quote:
Bullshit. No proof of any effect? Apart from the CEO of fucking company that is producing the vaccines blaming the EU's tardines for the mess they're in right now. :rolleyes:
I've been warning about this for ages before this blew up. Here's someone I've quoted to you before, and you think there is no effect? Do you believe that - honestly!? No effect!?
Madrid: "No vaccines left".
Aimless: "No effect"
So here's a good example of you not reading. I said that the chart does not show any proof of any effect. Do you understand the words in that sentence? It's just a chart. There is no scientific analysis. There is nothing in the chart that shows causation. You're showing me a chart that clearly shows vaccinations cause covid deaths. A chart that clearly shows Eurovision prowess causes vaccinations. Or any of an infinite number of spurious relationships. What the chart shows is that the EU's vaccine rollout has ramped up slowly on average, and may have hit a roadblock. It most certainly does not show that the EU's per capita spending on vaccines has caused this. You could just as easily argue that it shows zero effect of the per capita spending difference and 100% effect of the delay wrt signing the contract.
Quote:
No, just because I reject your inane ridiculous arguments like that there's no effect from not signing up for vaccines until the last minute, nor investing in producing them doesn't mean I haven't read them. :rolleyes:
You might want to re-read what you were responding to, esp. focusing on the fact that it concerns two separate discussions.
Quote:
Again this isn't about peer review. This is about reaching a decision and doing it. Peer review is an entirely different process.
If you had read what I wrote, you would've realized that it was specifically about your strange inability to understand that the JCVI cannot count as "external experts" for the purposes of critically appraising their own work. By definition. It doesn't have to be about peer review—it's about the relationship (although, to be clear, it is also about peer review). That is why I added the example about people being judges and juries at their own trials.
Your argument re. the risk of delays is not persuasive for several reasons.
1. There can't possibly be any delays—because you have claimed that the models for this strategy exist and have been made public (they do not appear to have been made public).
2. There needn't be any delays—the critical appraisal can be conducted rapidly, in parallel, as you proceed—and everyone will have learned a lot within a couple of weeks, before any harm is done.
3. Delays can't possibly be a problem for you considering your indifference to the deadly delays through which your PM and his govt. contributed to tens of thousands of deaths.
Quote:
There were ots of claims as to what the science was, speaking to multiple scientists is entirely appropriate. It wasn't cranks spoken to, it was leading scientists who aren't on SAGE.
First of all, they consulted the contrarian idiot leading our dangerously flawed pandemic response.
Secondly, what I said was:
Quote:
a minister presented cherry-picked politically motivated advice, in secret, in a successful bid to sway the PM—with catastrophic and indeed deadly results. In what way do you think that's comparable to quickly making public sufficiently detailed information about scientific analyses so that they can be subject to scientific scrutiny? Secret is the exact opposite of public. Political is not scientific.
Now, if you had read what I said—both now and back in that discussion—you would've realized that the two situations are not comparable. Your belief that my position on the two matters is inconsistent reflects your inability to understand that the two situations differ significantly. You may as well claim that my position on the present discussion is inconsistent with my position on Indian food.
Quote:
As for evidence, we have sufficient evidence - from several studiest - to support vaccinating everyone vulnerable. Yet you don't want to act immediately upon it, you want to farm it off for "peer review". Hypocrite!
Your characterization of the question shows that you have not been reading posts throughout this discussion. We do not have any evidence to support partially vaccinating the most frail subjects with the Pfizer vaccine and then delaying their second dose by over three months. We have some—very dubious—evidence that might let us argue the merits of such a strategy wrt the AZN vaccine, but a convincing argument for implementing this strategy with that vaccine would at the very least require detailed models showing that this strategy is beneficial overall across a wide range of assumptions about key parameters and scenarios. I even provided you with a link to a paper that conducts precisely that kind of modeling, to explore a very similar question, in order to help you understand what kind of evidence might be helpful. The paper, though it is comparatively simplistic and not directly applicable to the present pandemic, also illustrates why it's not obvious that a breadth-first strategy is always better in a pandemic than a strategy that focuses on fully immunizing the most vulnerable. Did you even click the link?
Quote:
You should have read the article I provided you too first. Ms Kyriakides is being disingenuous. The CEO of Astrazeneca has made it absolutely clear that Astrazeneca were contractually obliged to supply the UK manufactured doses to the UK contract, that the UK paid for and signed three months earlier first and that the EU can be supplied from those plants after the UK contract has been fulfilled - and that was known and locked in contract three months before the EU belatedly signed its deal.
In light of his careless answers in the article, what this indicates is that AZN sold the same capacity twice, leading to a conflict between contracts. The EU's description of their contract is more clear than his description in the article, and that description does not indicate a situation where the UK capacity must first be used to fulfill the entire UK order.
Quote:
As for claims that the EU paid for the factories that's bollocks.
First of all, please read, and please be accurate. The statement you are responding to reads:
Quote:
In fact, EU officials point out to me that EU money went into upgrading the facilities in the UK and that they fully expected it to be operational for them.
That is not the same as "the EU paid for the factories". Secondly, if you believe the reporter is lying, or uncritically repeating a lie, you should take it up with him. A BBC journalist covering such a high-profile issue is likely to be much more thorough in confirming the information he gets and reports than eg. you are, so I am inclined to take his word for it.
Quote:
Because you're in denial that not paying for vaccines is related to not getting vaccines. :rolleyes:
This isn't ice cream and pirates - this is not paying for ice cream and not having ice cream
You seem to have lost track of this part of the conversation. My issue with the chart is that, even if we take the data at face value as being comprehensive and comparable—and it is neither—the yield on per capita vaccine development investments should not be expected to scale linearly; consequently, if you imagine you're seeing a direct linear relationship, and if the data is of sufficient quality and well-characterized and comparable, there's probably something wrong with what you're seeing. Taken to its extreme, it's like seeing a relationship such that per capita vaccine development investment directly causes covid deaths.
You mention not paying for vaccines, but the EU has in fact paid for vaccines; in AZN's case, it has negotiated a price that is nearly half that of the UK's. If you sign a contract to sell something me to me at a certain date, at a lower price than you sold the same type of product for to someone else, you must still deliver on your contract to me—even if you're getting less money; it's your business to know what you can deliver, at what cost, and when. If you have a problem with that, you should not sign the contract. So the price per dose is irrelevant to the matter of fulfilling the contract. If you negotiate for additional funds as a condition for delivering what you've sold, then that, too, can't be a legitimate issue for failing to deliver—you know your operational needs best, and you have determined that the funds you've negotiated are sufficient to help you fulfill your contractual obligations. That leaves the issue Soriot focuses on in his interview: problems with scaling up and fine-tuning production processes in the limited time available, eg. due to a late conclusion of the deal. That's a fair defense, but not for notifying the customer barely a week before delivery. The problems he describes should have been known about for months—because, unless they've been producing vaccine for about that long, they are unlikely to have any hope of meeting the 80 million target—let alone the much higher volumes promised for the rest of the year.
Quote:
Garbage. You just need to read and understand what I write and not expect others to swallow your shit just because you haven't bothered to understand what others think and understand why others think differently to you.
RB, you keep posting replies that show you have not read before posting. It's not a matter of interpretation. For example, in response to requests for modeling a specific vaccination strategy, you have repeatedly linked to a document that simply does not contain such a model. It's possible I have missed it, but, if you believe I have, please provide me with a screenshot. Other examples include your tendency to overlook key elements of a question or an answer, which cause you to respond to the wrong thing—typically with a wrong answer. You often say I have said something I have not, and lose your shit over things you accidentally thought I said because you weren't reading carefully. In the past, you have linked to sources that directly contradict the claims you were attempting to use them to support. It's just a weird and honestly very frustrating pattern with you. I believe an adult who can read and write and frequently engages in debate should at the very least be able and willing to read posts and associated documents properly before responding to them. It is the absolute minimum standard, and I believe you should at least try to reach it.
Quote:
Did you read the Astrazeneca CEO's article yet? Because you are still sharing myths it complete tore to shreds
As a matter of fact, I provided you with a link to the English translation, and went over his inaccurate and misleading claims in detail. Clearly you didn't read my post, or you would've known that.
Quote:
- and now the farcical Ms Kyriakides is rowing back fast after her lies have been called out.
Diplomatic language for "Oh I've really shat the bed, how to clean this up now?"
In addition to demonstrating, once again, your inability to read, you are also demonstrating your affinity for The Sun style analysis. This does not do you any credit. Note, by the way, that Soriot did indeed show up—just as he had to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RandBlade
Except if you'd read the background (see how irritating that is, two can play at this puerile game if you insist on continuing with it)
RB, you can't play this game because you can't read. Being able to read is the requirement for playing this game. Since you clearly cannot, you cannot actually play it.
Quote:
you would have known that the delays now are caused by the months wasted.
France, Germany etc were ready to put pen to paper in June. The EU insisted upon getting involved and wasted valuable months, meaning AZN have lost months that could have been used perfecting the manufacturing process as they were in the UK. For what? More negotiations over a not for profit vaccine?
See, if you had been able to read, you would've realized this has no bearing on what I said to Gogo. Please re-read what Gogo said, and then re-read what I said in response to that. My answer to Gogo was that I do not believe the delayed signing was caused by institutional complexity. Instead, I believe it was due to the EU's priorities; it did not prioritize speed, and instead prioritized other concerns. In what way do you believe your take refutes that? Your first sentence is tantamount to declaring, "the delays were caused by the delay" which is super profound but not informative. You point to France and Germany being ready to sign in June (albeit without specifying which contract you're talking about), which does not in any way contradict what I said. You then indicate that the EU wasted time by negotiating over things that are, by implication, not very important. Ie. the EU did not prioritize speed and instead prioritized other concerns, presumably resulting in the contract being signed later than it would've if its priorities had been different—like I said. This is why I keep saying you should read before responding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RandBlade
Remember the claims earlier that Denmark were showing there was no issue with EU supply because Denmark were nearly performing as well as the UK?
Who claimed that? Where? Provide a link and a quote.
Quote:
Aimless: 'No evidence not paying for Covid vaccines has led to a shortage of supply'
The EU has clearly paid for its vaccines, and you have definitely not shown a causal relationship such as the one you've posited. Why are you posting a graph that shows bizarre children's shows have a negative impact on vaccine rollout?
Quote:
EDIT:
[ tweet ]1354441002384318464[/ tweet ]
Who has said that? Provide a link and a quote.
Quote:
Maybe one day Aimless will accept I was right in recent months to be warning about this. I saw this coming. I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so", this was an avoidable catastrophe.
I remember telling you your govt's policies would lead to an out-of-control epidemic and tens of thousands of preventable deaths. And it happened, and you just went right on defending Johnson's deadly decisions like a lapdog.
