The Coronavirus Thread

[pErvinalia]

Cant - the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments

[Hermit]

The two reports are at odds with each other but yet you cant see it.

The reports differed from each other. They were not contradictory. Consult your preferred dictionary already.

[rainbow]

I just give up it is impossible to have a conversation with someone who cant comprehend.

...so do you wear knickers under your skirt, or don't you?

[Tero]

Discussion of emergency vs expedited approval in the Wiki "talk" tab of Pfirzer vaccine:

"Emergency" versus "standard" authorization
This distinction is starting to lose its utility. Canada's authorization by interim order and the EU's conditional marketing authorization are not emergency use authorizations in the FDA sense of the term—they are formal approvals for marketing authorization, simply issued via an expedited rolling-review procedure and with conditions for enhanced pharmacovigilance. "Emergency" authorization is pretty much a U.S.-specific procedure, in that the drug remains formally unapproved by the FDA. I don't think it's useful to classify other countries' procedures as similar or analogous. Any thoughts? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, in the UK the approval comes under under Regulation 174 and is both temporary and conditional. The full text of the authorisation can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... 19-vaccine and contains two significant phrases: "MHRA may review and adjust these conditions for temporary supply ... This authorisation will be valid until expressly withdrawn by MHRA or upon issue of a full market authorisation by the MHRA." So it's pretty clear that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) makes a clear distinction between a conditional, temporary "authorisation to supply" and a "full market authorisation". Whether that turns out to be an important distinction, only time will tell, but it think we still need to accurately report the position. I agree with Sandy that "expedited" is a neat and concise summary, as long as readers have the opportunity to read the detail in the source itself. --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pfiz ... 19_vaccine

[JimC]

There ought to be a separate thread: "Rants about masks and data"

[NineBerry]

Our Coronavirus expert (Christian Drosten) goes Dutch.

[Scot Dutchy]

The two reports are at odds with each other but yet you cant see it.

The reports differed from each other. They were not contradictory. Consult your preferred dictionary already.

Once again your comprehension is zilch. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are unable to comprehend the nucleus of the reports so how can you discuss them?

[Joe]

[Hermit]

The two reports are at odds with each other but yet you cant see it.

The reports differed from each other. They were not contradictory. Consult your preferred dictionary already.

Once again your comprehension is zilch. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are unable to comprehend the nucleus of the reports so how can you discuss them?

I am almost convinced by your analysis in this post.

[Cunt]

Quick - attack the source!

https://en-volve.com/2021/01/21/on-very ... ses-rates/

On the exact same day that Joe Biden was inaugurated into office, the World Health Organization tightened their criteria for who is diagnosed as a positive COVID-19 case.

This has to be a coincidence, right? I mean, what are the odds?

Now, a single positive PCR test for the virus isn’t going to cut it anymore.

For some reason, as of inauguration day, the organization decided that those tests for the virus we’ve been relentlessly assured are the gold standard for detecting infection are, in reality, just a mere “aid for diagnosis.”

I don't know the source, so they are as sketchy as CNN, Q or OAN

[Hermit]

Quick - attack the source!

https://en-volve.com/2021/01/21/on-very ... ses-rates/

On the exact same day that Joe Biden was inaugurated into office, the World Health Organization tightened their criteria for who is diagnosed as a positive COVID-19 case.

This has to be a coincidence, right? I mean, what are the odds?

Now, a single positive PCR test for the virus isn’t going to cut it anymore.

For some reason, as of inauguration day, the organization decided that those tests for the virus we’ve been relentlessly assured are the gold standard for detecting infection are, in reality, just a mere “aid for diagnosis.”

I don't know the source, so they are as sketchy as CNN, Q or OAN

The World Health Organisation changed the criteria for who is diagnosed as a positive COVID-19 case six days ago, but yeah, that looks suspicious. It would look suspicious even if it had changed the criteria on inauguration day, for everyone knows that people will wrongly believe that Biden is better at fighting the epidemic than Trump solely on account of that change.

[laklak]

They will, because people are thick as pigshit.

[Hermit]

They will, because people are thick as pigshit.

Yep. All of them are as gullible as the core MAGA crowd. All of them, I tells ya.

[laklak]

Joe is muh frien! He give money! Good Joe! Bad Orange Man!

Stay tuned folks, this only gets better from here on out! Derpity Derp Derp Deroo!

[Cunt]

Joe is muh frien! He give money! Good Joe! Bad Orange Man!

Stay tuned folks, this only gets better from here on out! Derpity Derp Derp Deroo!

You close floating away yet, old man?