Coronavirus

[astfgyl]

But yes, we agree that proprietary rights for the vaccines should never have been allowed to reside in the hands of corporate interests. Hardly surprising I'd think that though.

It's hardly surprising that I would think that either but then you probably think I'm some sort of alt-right, Trump loving, fundamentalist, pro-christian, low IQ, Dole drawing, ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-loving, fox-watching, defy-the-narrative-no-matter-what, the-earth-is-flat-because-I-haven't-seen-it-being-round sort of stupid cunt and I'm happy to say that none of that shit actually applies to me and I have always seen myself as a leftist of sorts but no matter what ideology one clings to, anyone who isn't making money off of this fucked up worldwide switcharoo should be able to see it for what it is; a whole load of bollix from top to bottom.

You're here arguing about IVM being not properly trialed when the vaccines you are defending so hard have equally (and actually in a worse way) been skimped on in terms of actual real-world efficacy. I bet you didn't even read the trial data yourself even though I've linked it there. The data cannot actually be proved and you're the scientist and I'm the crazy, conspiracy-pushing idiot and yet I didn't buy in as hard as you did (if you read my posts I've even gone as far as saying I might take the vaccine once the data is finalised but can you tell me why it wasn't simply given to the extremely well-defined vulnerable cohort instead of blanket emergency authorisation? Bet you can't logically justify that.) especially taking into account how you love schooling lads about critical thinking. Side effects being added and confirmed with fuck all fanfare all the time https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/11/oxfordastrazeneca-vaccine-rare-blood-clot-syndrome-has-high-mortality-rate. I say side effects but in fact efficacy against developing Covid hasn't been proved so these are actually the main known effects and not the ones on the side at all.

Fucking ideologies and fucking idolatry.

The WHO have recommended against Remdesivir? Well they have also also recommended stopping asymptomatic testing outside of a very select few groups and recommended against diagnosis over a certain ct value (https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05) but I bet you didn't encounter those nuggets on your travels... "Widespread screening of asymptomatic individuals is not a currently recommended strategy due to the significant costs
associated with it and the lack of data on its operational effectiveness" (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/342002/WHO-2019-nCoV-lab-testing-2021.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y). Here, have the WHO take on the available vaccines altogether and don't pay any heed to what I say:

"Disclaimer
These landscape documents have been prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) for information purposes only concerning the 2019-2020 pandemic of the novel coronavirus. Inclusion of any particular product or entity in any of these landscape documents does not constitute, and shall not be deemed or construed as, any approval or endorsement by WHO of such product or entity (or any of its businesses or activities). While WHO takes reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the information presented in these landscape documents, WHO does not make any (and hereby disclaims all) representations and warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose (including any of the aforementioned purposes), quality, safety, efficacy, merchantability and/or non-infringement of any information provided in these landscape documents and/or of any of the products referenced therein. WHO also disclaims any and all liability or responsibility whatsoever for any death, disability, injury, suffering, loss, damage or other prejudice of any kind that may arise from or in connection with the procurement, distribution or use of any product included in any of these landscape documents."

Yes they are indeed covering their arses. Here's the source for that https://covid-nma.com/vaccines/mapping/

You can use the above link to see for yourself rather than anything I might say. Seriously, I am amazed that someone who studies confirmation bias and the money behind the publication of peer-reviewed papers could be so myopic about the situation to the extent that they seem to think the vaccines are based on something less of a wing-and-a-prayer basis than  IVM or HCQ or indeed anything else on offer. Even I can concede that the vaccines might work but you seemingly can't possibly concede that there might be another way out than what is being fed to you by the paid propaganda.

Is there any chance that you might be as propagandized as the poor bastards who won't as much as take a Tetanus shot because they think that the MMR jab causes Autism?

None of this whole shit, social restrictions or mandatory masking or mandatory vaccinations is actually a genuinely mandatory thing in any way that it will ever legally hold up. Every bit of all of this is done by consent.  Stop consenting and it will end quicker. Just say No.

"This is false"?

Come on to fuck, the IVM has actually been through more rigourous trials than any of the vaccine candidates and you well know it and you also know damn well that none of the vaccines have actually been proved to actually work. I can understand why you might be biased though, having taken one of them. And before this notion gets going in earnest that any of the vaccines finished off the "pandemic", here's a bit about how the last few ended: https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/19/how-the-covid-pandemic-ends-scientists-look-to-the-past-to-see-the-future/

Delta Variant?: Go back to sleep on that one. It's over with or without the shots. Rigourous/Robust trials me hole. Idoelogy/Idolatry all the way with this shit. Totems galore. So your vaccine protects you from the version that has already passed? Funny how you never hear of anyone infected with the OG version these days... Actually while we're at it, how many were naturally infected with the Alpha and subsequently got roasted with the Delta? Go look that up.

I can't wait to see which unimportant language-slip you pull me up over here. Ivermectin Advocating?.. Really? The pro-vaccination narrative has gotten so out of control that it's being said in the media that taking the shot gives you a better death than you might get if you didn't take it. It has all gone too far.

I could go on and on but I'm actually getting bored of people pretending that they can't see it for what it is and I'm gone to telling myself that people in general must actually be able to see it but have decided to play along because it might be easier in the long run to pretend they were on board with shit going demented for no proper reason. Covid will soon be over but the changes will be permanent and it will be the future generations who will have to live with them. We can then pat ourselves on the back for ushering in the future, and weren't we all great to play along..

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

But yes, we agree that proprietary rights for the vaccines should never have been allowed to reside in the hands of corporate interests. Hardly surprising I'd think that though.

It's hardly surprising that I would think that either but then you probably think I'm some sort of alt-right, Trump loving, fundamentalist, pro-christian, low IQ, Dole drawing, ridiculous-conspiracy-theory-loving, fox-watching, defy-the-narrative-no-matter-what, the-earth-is-flat-because-I-haven't-seen-it-being-round sort of stupid cunt and I'm happy to say that none of that shit actually applies to me and I have always seen myself as a leftist of sorts but no matter what ideology one clings to, anyone who isn't making money off of this fucked up worldwide switcharoo should be able to see it for what it is; a whole load of bollix from top to bottom.

Dude, chill out. Not even an iota of all that went through my mind when I said, "Hardly surprising I'd think that though." Quite the opposite, I was drawing on the socialism stereotype that's shoved on me here and giving it a, "Well, this stereotype has to get me a pass on this at least!"

Objectively, I think the bjm meta analysis is going to be more reliable than a meta analysis on a site that is pushing ivermectin as a treatment, especially given bjm's open discussion policy on its opinion/blog pages. And, when you look into the details just a little bit, it's pretty clear that the ivmmeta.com analysis is full of white-washing and explaining away. And people pushing the vaccine are doing the same. I know. Here's something I said earlier today elsewhere for example:

Honestly, I think total transparency is the only response [to the anti-COVID-vax movement]. Not in brief bursts, but a long-term policy for governments to be fully transparent about what they do and what they don't know. This hasn't been the case in most countries, so I don't blame anyone for being suspicious.
I think I could almost go so far as to say that if you don't understand the suspicion and distrust of the current anti-vax movement, then you're being as irrational with respect to understanding them as we presume they are being with respect to understanding the vax programme.

Either way, personally, I find the vaccine science more reliable than the ivm science I have seen so far. That may seem outlandish to you, but that's the way I see it. Despite all the shenanigans about how it's being rolled out (incidentally, didn't most countries begin by targeting the most vulnerable?), despite the billions that are being made off it, despite many things, I still find the science behind it more reliable than the ivm science. And I'm not biased against the ivm science, not in the way, for example, you began by being biased against the very bio-technology half of the vaccines are based on. And if ivm really did what is claimed, then that would be awesome. But I've yet to see it. You see it, I don't.

[Grim Reality]

Went through Dublin Airport yesterday to UK and no mention of the vaccine cert. I never travelled during the last 18 months but I gather you had to provide evidence of negative covid to get on the plane?

Nothing yesterday. Just the same check in procedure as pre covid. You could get up and get served at the bar as well.

I went out for dinner and pints in athlone the other night. First place scanned in the vaccine cert. Second place just had a visual check of it. Third place was like "you all have your vaccine certs, yeah? In you come".

These fecking things are obsolete already by the looks of it. I'm going to a soccer match today with full house attendance. Will be interesting to see how 'normal' the experience is.

We are hyper about this thing here in Ireland but I think we are even joining the rest of the world and just 'chucking it' at this stage.

[astfgyl]

Dude, chill out. Not even an iota of all that went through my mind when I said, "Hardly surprising I'd think that though." Quite the opposite, I was drawing on the socialism stereotype that's shoved on me here and giving it a, "Well, this stereotype has to get me a pass on this at least!"

Sorry man, I did get a bit over-exuberant there, and I agree wholly about the open-source argument. Sometimes this stuff drives me wrong and I guess I'm thinking that I must be stereotyped as some sort of thick cunt for going against all this lark, thrown in with the trump crowd. Fair enough you say the vaccine science is sound, but it is only on an emergency licence and that was granted on trial results that showed close to 100% efficacy when that is clearly not the case anywhere in the world, (this can easily be checked by looking up the most vaccinated countries and seeing how it's going for them, or comparing ICU numbers with the same time last year before any vaccines were available) so in no way is that science settled any more than the IVM. It's also worth noting that the IVM is being used on sick people where the vaccine is being banged out indiscriminately, so it is in fact far more difficult to measure its' effect in any meaningful way as I see it. Until they start vaccinating people and then giving them Covid, I can't see how it can be proved. And that also can't be done because nobody knows how to give somebody Covid in the first place. (Sounds unbelievable but that's a fact). In some pro-vaccine news, I've been reading a bit about Novavax, which sounds promising so far but will suffer from the same provability as I've described for the other ones as none of them are designed to be sterilising vaccines anyway.

Anyway, back to the funny stuff from Australian governments: https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/new-lockdown-rules-for-sydney-explained-as-singles-bubbles-burst-permits-brought-in-to-fight-delta/news-story/da861c5718634b39dde76d6f927192d3

They have really gone overboard with the authoritarian buzz.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Who has been saying that about the vaccine trials? Thousands of volunteers worldwide were infected with COVID, both prior to, during, and in the final phases of vaccine development. Here's one of the organizations that was helping recruit volunteers:
https://www.1daysooner.org/how

Before conducting a challenge trial to test vaccines, scientists must understand the smallest dose of the coronavirus that causes infection. This characterization study, which began in the UK in February 2021, starts by exposing a few participants to a very low viral dose. If a majority of those participants are infected, then a dose expansion phase occurs to test the dose in a total of about 20 people. If a majority of the initially dosed group is not infected, then a higher dose is tested among a few participants, and the process is repeated several times as needed.

Iran going into another lockdown. Iran and its response is surely a tricky one to fit into any narrative other than, "If let out of control, this COVID thing really fucks up your health system and lives are lost."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/14/iran-impose-six-day-lockdown-combat-coronavirus-fifth-wave

[astfgyl]

I have been saying that about the vaccine trials. At the time of approval no such challenge trials had been carried out on any of the vaccine candidates.

The challenge trials done by Imperial College and University of Oxford were not done on those who had received any of the vaccines. Imperial College are using seronegative volunteers and Oxford using seropositive volunteers. No mention of vaccinated volunteers as of yet. The quote you have there actually says this. It says it is a characterization study. The vaccine challenge trials have not started anywhere. So I stand by my statement that the efficacy of these candidates cannot be reliably measured until someone gives the thing and then tries to infect the recipient with the virus. The emergency approval of the vaccines was based on exaggerated results.

RESULTS
A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received
injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of
Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo;
BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to
97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups
defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of
coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first
dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety
profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the
injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was
low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in
persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to
that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov
number, NCT04368728.)

Look at the results there and then look at the conclusions. It's ridiculous. It's also done in healthy young volunteers who regularly test positive but do not regularly end up in ICU or die. Have to go to the shop but I'll use those results to calculate the risk reduction in a few when I get back. Edit: Ah bollix to it, Peter Doshi has made a far better argument around the trials in the BMJ: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and-first-see-the-full-data/ Well worth a read.

Iran? "If let out of control, this COVID thing really fucks up your health system and lives are lost." Who funds The Guardian?

Edit: Actually fuck who funds the papers, who funds the health services? Who made the decision to have a blank cheque for Covid and didn't have the foresight to beef up the health services instead of the billions spent on testing and tracing? People say things like that would take too long etc, but that was at the start of 2020 and we are now in the latter half of 2021 so we could all be well on the way.

Sweden. Florida. Texas. How do those fit into that narrative?

Israel. Iceland. Seychelles. Gibraltar. What's the narrative for those places?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Sweden, Florida, Texas, Israel, Iceland, Seychelles, Gibraltar, etc., etc., are not political and economic outsiders. Iran are. That's what makes their response a bit more difficult to fit into a narrative centered on things like neo-liberal politics, etc. If Iran are responding similarly to other countries, is it because they independently think they have to, or is it because they're "playing ball". But in the case, why on this issue and not others? Of course it's possible to imagine a narrative Iran "playing ball" fits into, but in order to get Iran in there, you have to broaden the narrative more than for any standard NATO/UN nation.

[astfgyl]

Sweden, Florida, Texas, Israel, Iceland, Seychelles, Gibraltar, etc., etc., are not political and economic outsiders. Iran are. That's what makes their response a bit more difficult to fit into a narrative centered on things like neo-liberal politics, etc. If Iran are responding similarly to other countries, is it because they independently think they have to, or is it because they're "playing ball". But in the case, why on this issue and not others? Of course it's possible to imagine a narrative Iran "playing ball" fits into, but in order to get Iran in there, you have to broaden the narrative more than for any standard NATO/UN nation.

Good one!

I'll give it a go: The first three are not suffering any special meltdown due to covid but either came out of or didn't do the lockdowns like all of the tog-shitting countries who did. The narrative says they should be proper fucked but indeed they are not. So these places will need a different narrative spun for them on why their situation is so.

Israel, Seychelles, Gibraltar and Iceland were four of the most vaccinated countries on Earth and all experienced record case numbers after the rollout and in the case of Seychelles and Gibraltar, record deaths. Actually Ireland has recorded more deaths since the rollout began than before as well, so let's not forget Ireland while we are here. How do we spin the narrative for these countries?

How about Afghanistan so, as a comparison to Iran? Or here is a far better comparison: Israel vs Palestine. Check that one out because it fucks every aspect of the narrative. I'm pretty sure Palestine is a non-NATO country...

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I'm not seeing your info about record deaths in the Seychelles or Gibraltar.

You say Palestine because they have low cases at the moment and low vaccination rate? That's not my point. That a region like that should exist is totally plausible. I'm talking about Iran because they are experiencing a surge. Palestine could experience a surge too, who knows when. It's 7 day average is currently three times higher than it was a month ago. What I meant was why would Iran play ball in terms of response unless it thought it needed to?

[astfgyl]

Iran will do whatever they want. Perhaps digital passports will be of use there too? Gibraltar didn't have a death until after the rollout.

Here's a report about Seychelles: https://www.newsafrica.net/world/seychelles-what-is-causing-the-post-vax-rise-in-cases I predict this situation to repeat in a lot more places. It's already happening in many.

Here is a well-referenced twitter thread that is also worth a read, around the same subject. Don't dismiss it out of hand, do give it a read, and all info is verifiable: https://twitter.com/holmenkollin/status/1415989536933490688

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it.

[astfgyl]

Another bit of that madness that I mentioned was coming to Australia: Ignore the hashtags, watch the video:
https://twitter.com/erintheboss/status/1427224029409075202

Edit: Was actually the wrong tweet. It was meant to be the one about not taking your mask off while drinking. The one I linked is bad enough though so will still do. Looked into that story a bit more then because they were making it sound like small kids and https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/09/hsc-students-frustrated-with-last-minute-changes-to-mass-covid-19-vaccination-system read that and realised that with such an overall low number vaccinated why are Australia going with teenagers instead of working down through the ages, disregarding the No Parents bit in the video because that bit was shit but it still raises the question?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Gibraltar has had 95 deaths in total. All but one of them happened before the vaccine programme was finished. That's what I meant by not seeing your info.
The Seychelles had its peak in cases in May of this year, over two thirds of those cases were in unvaccinated people, but yes the rest were in vaccinated people. This info was shared up front. 80% of those hospitalized were unvaccinated. Overall deaths remain extremely low. Maybe there's something to draw from that, maybe not. I wouldn't use it to extrapolate to a global phenomenon, personally.

I'm afraid your newsafrica "report" there can't be said to be taking an honest approach. It's clearly trying to blame a rise in cases on vaccination programmes, but is also relying on people not looking into the info it gives. For example, it uses Namibia as an illustration of its point, stating that there was a surge in cases only after the vaccination programme began. Okay, that aspect is true, but they omit the slightly more important aspect that only 2.6% (no, that decimal point is not a typo) of the entire population of Namibia is fully vaccinated.

And I'm afraid the twitter thread isn't much better:
https://twitter.com/holmenkollin/status/1415995479754743809
"Seems like we have a pretty solid correlation here."
No, we absolutely don't have a pretty solid correlation there. If we did, then my own data I'm analyzing at the moment would be crazily correlated in mad ways, and I'd be on the brink of something huge! Unfortunately, that's not the case.

So, researcher cap on, because this is worth knowing: You have to provide an r or r² (r-squared) value to know whether or not two variables are correlated. The r² value tells you how much of the variance in the y-axis (vax rate in this graph) can be explained by variance in the x-axis (daily case rate in this graph), or vice versa, mathematically it's the same. If your r² value is, say, 0.25 then 25% of your y-axis variance is explained by your x-axis variance, and the rest - importantly - must be explained by other factors. If you have lots of variance in the y-axis, so vertical variance, as we clearly have here at the far left of the graph, where Hungary, Romania, and a huge cluster of unnamed countries are bunched together, so if you have that but with no or little corresponding x-axis variance, then you don't have a solid correlation at all, no matter how nice the geometric curve you draw onto the graph looks. Or another way to make this graph speak; right of Greece on the graph, there are only six data points, six countries. Left of Greece, there are 33 data points, mostly unnamed, but 33 countries presumably. So the lion's share of the data weight is crammed into the left hand side there. The y-axis variance for those 33 data points stretches over about 70% of the vertical height of the graph, their x-axis variance over only about 17% of the horizontal width. In short, the graph shows the opposite of what the guy thinks it does; variance in vaccination rate is not correlated with variance in daily case rate. Not on whatever day he snapped that data anyway.

[astfgyl]

Gibraltar has had 95 deaths in total. All but one of them happened before the vaccine programme was finished. That's what I meant by not seeing your info.
The Seychelles had its peak in cases in May of this year, over two thirds of those cases were in unvaccinated people, but yes the rest were in vaccinated people. This info was shared up front. 80% of those hospitalized were unvaccinated. Overall deaths remain extremely low. Maybe there's something to draw from that, maybe not. I wouldn't use it to extrapolate to a global phenomenon, personally.

- But you tried doing the same with Iran. And saying all but one in Gibraltar was before the end of the vaccinations? How many before the vaccinations started?

I'm afraid your newsafrica "report" there can't be said to be taking an honest approach. It's clearly trying to blame a rise in cases on vaccination programmes, but is also relying on people not looking into the info it gives. For example, it uses Namibia as an illustration of its point, stating that there was a surge in cases only after the vaccination programme began. Okay, that aspect is true, but they omit the slightly more important aspect that only 2.6% (no, that decimal point is not a typo) of the entire population of Namibia is fully vaccinated.

- You often quote the Guardian and NYT at me, so not taking the scolding over bias.

And I'm afraid the twitter thread isn't much better:
https://twitter.com/holmenkollin/status/1415995479754743809
"Seems like we have a pretty solid correlation here."
No, we absolutely don't have a pretty solid correlation there. If we did, then my own data I'm analyzing at the moment would be crazily correlated in mad ways, and I'd be on the brink of something huge! Unfortunately, that's not the case.

So, researcher cap on, because this is worth knowing: You have to provide an r or r² (r-squared) value to know whether or not two variables are correlated. The r² value tells you how much of the variance in the y-axis (vax rate in this graph) can be explained by variance in the x-axis (daily case rate in this graph), or vice versa, mathematically it's the same. If your r² value is, say, 0.25 then 25% of your y-axis variance is explained by your x-axis variance, and the rest - importantly - must be explained by other factors. If you have lots of variance in the y-axis, so vertical variance, as we clearly have here at the far left of the graph, where Hungary, Romania, and a huge cluster of unnamed countries are bunched together, so if you have that but with no or little corresponding x-axis variance, then you don't have a solid correlation at all, no matter how nice the geometric curve you draw onto the graph looks. Or another way to make this graph speak; right of Greece on the graph, there are only six data points, six countries. Left of Greece, there are 33 data points, mostly unnamed, but 33 countries presumably. So the lion's share of the data weight is crammed into the left hand side there. The y-axis variance for those 33 data points stretches over about 70% of the vertical height of the graph, their x-axis variance over only about 17% of the horizontal width. In short, the graph shows the opposite of what the guy thinks it does; variance in vaccination rate is not correlated with variance in daily case rate. Not on whatever day he snapped that data anyway.

- Had either too many or not enough cans on me to take into this last night. I'll come back to that graph and thread after work.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I'm not "scolding you over bias", but that's some pretty hardcore dishonesty there; "In Namibia, the vaccination programme is causing the surge in cases!" "But only two and a half percent are vaccinated." "Shhhhhh."

[astfgyl]

I've read the article again and it doesn't say that the vaccinations are causing the surge in cases. It does sort of imply it but says:

"A possible correlation could be made between the use of these Chinese made vaccines and the subsequent Covid-19 outbreaks we're seeing in Namibia, Zimbabwe, Gabon, Congo and parts of Latin America.

On March 19, 2021, the Namibian government began the roll out of its vaccination programme, thanks to the arrival of the Sinopharm vaccines donated by the Chinese government. 

If you take a look at Namibia's new Covid cases, you see cases rose after the rollout, peaking at 3,268 infections on June 30, 2021, around five time its pre-rollout peak of 608 cases on December 31, 2020."

That information is correct as far as it can be checked on the likes of Our World in Data. Here are the relevant graphs from a google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=namibia+vaccinations+covid&oq=namibia+vaccinations&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l7.8764j0j7&client=ubuntu&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and https://www.google.com/search?q=namibia+covid+cases&oq=namibia+covid+cases&aqs=chrome..69i57.5623j0j7&client=ubuntu&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). What I see from that it is that it could be said that the high cases have coincided with the rollout but also with such a low number of the population getting it so far (3.2%) that it's clear that the epidemic there has peaked and fallen without the vaccinations and also without the apocalyptic predictions becoming a reality. They also say that a "possible correlation" could be made. We have been over it before that correlation does not equal causation, and although I would prefer an article to simply ask the question rather than imply anything, in its way it is no worse than every major media outlet in this part of the world going on the hysteria train since feb 2020 and all of the different things and people that have been blamed for the cases in this part of the world.

Out of curiosity, and in relation to the graph from the twitter thread which I'm not avoiding, I'm going to do a similar exercise for Ireland, UK, France, Germany and Denmark and Holland. We can then plot the graph and see where it takes us. I'm choosing those countries because they are roughly of a similar latitude, rather than randomly picking geographically disparate countries from the whole world. I'm picking just 5 because I have a few other things to do this evening (although admittedly I could give all day and night at this) and I'm on the promise of a game of chess.

I take your point about his graph and the 30-odd unnamed countries although I feel the info in the rest of the thread is sound and he maybe shouldn't have said there's a definite pattern. All we can do is have a look ourselves.  My guess, and what I think we are going to see happening in more and more countries as vaccinations progress is that the vaccines are going to have little to no effect on anything and the epidemic curves will rise and fall independently. That doesn't however rule out the effect they might have on hospitalisations and deaths, so don't worry it will be a fair look at things. Be back with it in a bit. Feel free to suggest any other countries you like as well so you don't think I'm cherry picking. I also haven't looked at any of those other than Ireland so far.