• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

funkycoldmedina said:
This is a good article about why we might not get a perfectly formed coronavirus vaccine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...accine?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Click to expand...

What a miserable headline;
Why we might not get a coronavirus vaccine.
Jeez, how pessimistic is that? A headline based on supposition.
So then, they don't know that we won't find a vaccine but's let's be pessimistic anyway, it'll probably get more attention.
No wonder so many people are having mental health issues.
 
Slime said:
What a miserable headline;
Why we might not get a coronavirus vaccine.
Jeez, how pessimistic is that? A headline based on supposition.
So then, they don't know that we won't find a vaccine but's let's be pessimistic anyway, it'll probably get more attention.
No wonder so many people are having mental health issues.
Click to expand...
It's actually a well balanced well researched article which I'm guessing you didn't bother reading.
 
funkycoldmedina said:
It's actually a well balanced well researched article which I'm guessing you didn't bother reading.
Click to expand...

No, which is why I only commented on the headline.
It may well be a good article but I'm not overly interested in articles with such negative headlines right now.
There's enough misery in the media without needlessly adding to it, in my opinion.
 
Slime said:
No, which is why I only commented on the headline.
It may well be a good article but I'm not overly interested in articles with such negative headlines right now.
There's enough misery in the media without needlessly adding to it, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Each to their own, it talks about how we may not get a coverall vaccine but there are other options and how we've adapted other strategies on top of the issues around finding a viral vaccine.
On a wider point I do find the running down and disbelief in mainstream media a worrying trend. Broadsheets and the BBC are brim full of quality journalism which is well researched and well presented. I would happily read articles from the telegraph, times, independent etc. The demonisation of them over the last few years is a race to the bottom imho
 
funkycoldmedina said:
It's actually a well balanced well researched article which I'm guessing you didn't bother reading.
Click to expand...

It appears to be well researched, but it does very much tend to the negative. The virus' nearest relation is SARS, which has effectively died out; why could this not do the same, and where was that possibility mentioned?
 
bobmac said:
When I want to know about vaccines, I'd rather listen to a vaccinologist.
Click to expand...
So science journalism isn't for you then?
I can almost guarantee a vaccinologist couldn't bring all the different strands together into a way lay people will understand. Most journalists reporting on science have been educated and worked in the science sector.
 
funkycoldmedina said:
Read the last 2 paragraphs
Click to expand...

I did; it's an afterthought quote rather than any balanced view from the journalist as far as I'm concerned. The bias of the article is still very much looking for the negatives. It could have looked as why SARS effectively died out, what comparisons there are between the two, and whether that is a viable option. It didn't, it relied on one quote at the end for its "balance". It also factually states that the virus is here to stay, whilst SARS apparently isn't, so again, tending to the negative for me.
 
funkycoldmedina said:
So science journalism isn't for you then?
I can almost guarantee a vaccinologist couldn't bring all the different strands together into a way lay people will understand. Most journalists reporting on science have been educated and worked in the science sector.
Click to expand...

Ian Sample is a physicist and wrote a book on the Higgs Boson 10 years ago.
He is not an expert on vaccines
 
Blue in Munich said:
I did; it's an afterthought quote rather than any balanced view from the journalist as far as I'm concerned. The bias of the article is still very much looking for the negatives. It could have looked as why SARS effectively died out, what comparisons there are between the two, and whether that is a viable option. It didn't, it relied on one quote at the end for its "balance". It also factually states that the virus is here to stay, whilst SARS apparently isn't, so again, tending to the negative for me.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly SARS human to human transmission was very low which lead to it disappearing which clearly isn't relevant with Covid-19. Apart from it having structural similarities to Covid-19 it's not a great epidemiological comparison.
 
funkycoldmedina said:
If I remember correctly SARS human to human transmission was very low which lead to it disappearing which clearly isn't relevant with Covid-19. Apart from it having structural similarities to Covid-19 it's not a great epidemiological comparison.
Click to expand...

Then why doesn't the well researched article state that to remove any doubt, rather than leaving room for interpretation?
 
Blue in Munich said:
Then why doesn't the well researched article state that to remove any doubt, rather than leaving room for interpretation?
Click to expand...
Maybe just maybe you came at the article with wanting pick holes in it and therefore found what you wanted. I just read an article that informed and wasn't try to scaremonger but just offer insight to many of the issues that scientists could and will be facing in the coming months and how other examples will inform them.
 
funkycoldmedina said:
Maybe just maybe you came at the article with wanting pick holes in it and therefore found what you wanted. I just read an article that informed and wasn't try to scaremonger but just offer insight to many of the issues that scientists could and will be facing in the coming months and how other examples will inform them.
Click to expand...

Or maybe I just read it, acknowledged the fact that it appeared to be well researched, but found it tended towards the negative, and defended that opinion when challenged. I was quite happy to acknowledge that it appeared well researched, why wouldn't I happy to acknowledge it was well balanced if that's how I felt? Why you feel the need to try to pick holes in differing opinions I don't know.
 
There is some disinformation, careless or otherwise, in all dramatic news, of course.
So what to believe?

As with the question of a covid vaccine .
We know that Oxford Uni are conducting trials on humans of a vaccine. That has been going on for a little while.
But just last week I read that there are reports that the laboratory had got a situation where all the monkeys they had vaccinated, and then (attempted to ) infect had shown signs of getting covid: thus the vaccine hadn't worked.

Bugger, you think. Then , I ask, why would the laboratory test on monkeys, and get a failure, yet still to go on doing human trials?

Doesn't make practical or moral sense, to my mind.

Or could it be that the monkeys story is disinformation,( intentional or reckless or careless)

So, until the Professor and her team at Oxford report officially, I'll still keep positively hoping.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
There is some disinformation, careless or otherwise, in all dramatic news, of course.
So what to believe?

As with the question of a covid vaccine .
We know that Oxford Uni are conducting trials on humans of a vaccine. That has been going on for a little while.
But just last week I read that there are reports that the laboratory had got a situation where all the monkeys they had vaccinated, and then (attempted to ) infect had shown signs of getting covid: thus the vaccine hadn't worked.

Bugger, you think. Then , I ask, why would the laboratory test on monkeys, and get a failure, yet still to go on doing human trials?

Doesn't make practical or moral sense, to my mind.

Or could it be that the monkeys story is disinformation,( intentional or reckless or careless)

So, until the Professor and her team at Oxford report officially, I'll still keep positively hoping.
Click to expand...
Peobably because their initial human studies arent at therauptic doses theyre toxicology bssed. They'll be running therapeutic doses and higher in primates for proof of concept
 
funkycoldmedina said:
"Ian Sample is a science correspondent at The Guardian, and before that at New Scientist. He holds a PhD in biomedical science and was named investigative journalist of the year in 2005 by the Association of British Science Writers"
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, I did my research.
But I repeat, If I want to know about vaccines, I'll listen to a vaccinologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top