COVID-19

[David L]

'Put Pro-Vaccine 'Propaganda' in EastEnders, Ministers Secretly Urged BBC Bosses'

https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=310424

[Slim]

Wouldn't have been the first time that a TV drama had been used to promote a cause, the BBC does it off its own bat all the time, including in EastEnders. And in a national emergency it's only to be applauded that the government stressed to the corporation that this would be useful.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zbd8s82

And how amusing that the source in your link is The Daily Sceptic, which enthusiastically pushed its own propaganda during the pandemic, the critical difference being that this was often categorically misinformation, or (more likely) disinformation.

[David L]

Wouldn't have been the first time that a TV drama had been used to promote a cause, the BBC does it off its own bat all the time, including in EastEnders. And in a national emergency it's only to be applauded that the government stressed to the corporation that this would be useful.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zbd8s82

And how amusing that the source in your link is The Daily Sceptic, which enthusiastically pushed its own propaganda during the pandemic, the critical difference being that this was often categorically misinformation, or (more likely) disinformation.

It clearly states that The Torygraph carried the original story but you have to subscribe to read it on their site. Bullshitters  as well in their own way too, I suppose.

[Slim]

I suspect I may have Covid. Will test myself later, if only for curiosity. I'm not too bad, just a sore throat and feeling bunged up and fluey.

[Fishy]

I suspect I may have Covid. Will test myself later, if only for curiosity. I'm not too bad, just a sore throat and feeling bunged up and fluey.

My daughter in law has it.. she's just back from Lyon .. a very sore throat was the start of it..

[Slim]

Most recent Lateral Flow test I have is a year out of date. It says I'm negative, but it's not reliable now so I'll go with "probably negative".

[David L]

Most recent Lateral Flow test I have is a year out of date. It says I'm negative, but it's not reliable now so I'll go with "probably negative".

"Stay ay home! Save the NHS" 

[David L]

Interestingly a Covid story has just popped up on my FB feed from the local paper (Witney Gazette). A local business that was involved in the Oxford/AZ vaccine has ceased trading with debts of nearly £4m. So, I guess, they were given oodles of public money when the pandemic hit(HMRC owed £20k).

A statement from Nye Health posted on its LinkedIn said: "We aimed high and grew quickly, backed by the belief of our investors, partners, clinicians, and team. "
 

https://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/25265645.covid-vaccine-business-oxfordshire-ceased-trading/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwLMgFxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHgl4VVq1iwcdGdQLO2L9Xe_2SnsegHNpTw4h0snRbV8-FiUB-9B62OPTEu89_aem_ASjNALxX846CWTH9rXO6kA#Echobox=1751083575

[Slim]

Removed a Nurse Campbell video as he's a well established disinformation source, but the topic of his piece is addressed here (Perplexity AI first)


Highslide Image Viewer

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/japanese-study-does-not-report-explosion-deaths-among-covid-vaccinated-2025-04-24/

Highslide Image Viewer

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12095670/

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jmaj/8/2/8_584/_article/-char/ja

https://www.jmaj.jp/download.php?id=10.31662%2Fjmaj.2024-0298

[Matt2112]

Risk of death from Covid: 1.7%

Risk of severe outcomes from Covid vaccinations: 0.00005%

There have been 14 billion doses of Covid vaccinations administered since they were introduced.

For everyday purposes, the debate is settled.

Source: Our World In Data

[Slim]

Interesting analysis / presentation on the origin of the COVID virus, by a microbiologist. Was it a lab leak?

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

[Thenop]

Interesting analysis / presentation on the origin of the COVID virus, by a microbiologist. Was it a lab leak?

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

[Matt2112]

I had my winter flu jab the other day and was wondering why I also didn't receive my usual invitation to have a Covid vaccination along with it; turns out my medical technicality no longer falls under the scope of the latest criteria, which I find cautiously reassuring.

[Slim]

The goalposts have moved for free winter COVID jabs and I can't now get one, but to be fair: most of us have got a bit of residual immunity even if we haven't had the disease for a couple of years and of course the NHS isn't being overwhelmed. And treatments are better, as well.

I asked an AI if the present strain doing the rounds is inherently less severe than the original "ancestral" virus that broke out of the market at Wuhan. It's about the same or a bit less severe - but (and I'd forgotten this), as well as becoming more transmissible over time, developing strains actually became more severe in terms of outcomes as well - peaking with Delta in 2021, which caused a two-fold hospitalisation risk.

So the severity of the virus (so to speak) has ebbed back since then, but it's still about 80%+ as bad - not accounting for better treatment - as it was in early 2020.

Highslide Image Viewer

It's still heavily age-skewed though, so at the same time as the virus diminishes in severity, we become more vulnerable to it.

[David L]

Interesting report from Germany on the use of PCR testing during the pandemic:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/epidemiology/articles/10.3389/fepid.2025.1592629/full

4 Summary and conclusion
The principal finding from our analysis of ALM data on both nucleic acid amplification (PCR from mucosal swabs) and IgG antibody (serological) testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Germany between mid-March 2020 and summer 2021 is this: only 14%—and possibly even fewer, down to 10%—of individuals identified as SARS-CoV-2-positive via PCR testing were actually infected, as evidenced by detectable IgG antibodies.

Our conclusion is twofold. First, the IgG testing conducted by ALM laboratories was commissioned by the RKI, itself subordinate to the BMG. Nonetheless, data acquisition evidently ceased after cw21(2021) or, at the very least, public reporting of the data on the ALM website (23) stopped. The IgG results observed and published by ALM have not been acknowledged or communicated by the RKI to date, despite the fact that transparency in reporting such data should be mandatory, both scientifically and in terms of public accountability. Second, the proportion of the German population with a detectable immune response to SARS-CoV-2 was already substantial by the end of 2020. Approximately one-quarter of the population carried IgG antibodies at that point, following a trajectory determined almost exclusively by natural infections. By the end of 2021, practically the whole German population could be considered IgG positive.

Evidently, from March 2020 onward, a national German serological antibody cohort study was conducted—initiated and overseen by the RKI and BMG—though it was never publicly communicated as such, nor has it been adequately analyzed to this day. In consequence, German authorities had timely and reliable access to data tracking the course of IgG seropositivity—data that were, in fact, close to being population-representative. These data could have served as an objective metric for monitoring the proclaimed "epidemic situation of national significance" ("Epidemische Lage Nationaler Tragweite").

Instead, this evidence-based and representative serological signal was disregarded in favor of relying on the weekly absolute number of positive PCR tests—the so-called "7-day incidence" ("Sieben-Tage-Inzidenz"). Unequivocally, this definition of incidence yields a scientifically meaningless figure in the context of infection dynamics, as it depends entirely on the arbitrary (or imposed) number of PCR tests performed. It is therefore not an objective indicator of epidemiological reality, but an administratively imposed figure—more reflective of political will than scientific rigor. Yet, incomprehensibly, this 7-day incidence metric was even incorporated into the German Infection Protection Act ("Infektionsschutzgesetz") as the quantitative foundation for imposing highly restrictive public health measures. The methodological shortcomings and institutional processes that enabled its elevation to policy status demand critical re-evaluation—not only to prevent similar errors in the future, but to restore trust in evidence-based public health governance.