Peter Sagan, who has just joined Team TotalEnergies after five seasons at Bora-Hansgrohe, has tested positive for COVID-19 for the second time. In less than a year.
The three-time world champion revealed in a post on Twitter that he and brother Juraj, who has also switched to the French WorldTeam, are now self-isolating.
He wrote: “My brother Juraj and I took Covid-19 tests which, unfortunately, came out positive. We have symptoms related to the virus and we are following the corresponding guidance set by the relevant authorities. I’ll keep you posted.”
My brother Juraj and I took Covid-19 tests which, unfortunately, came out positive. We have symptoms related to the virus and we are following the corresponding guidance set by the relevant authorities. I’ll keep you posted.
— Peter Sagan (@petosagan) January 4, 2022
Sagan, who previously tested positive for COVID-19 in February last year during a training camp on Gran Canaria, had been due to make his Team Total Energies debut later this month at the Vuelta a San Juan.
> Peter Sagan tests positive for Covid-19 during Gran Canaria training camp
Irrespective of the disruption to his preparations for the new season caused by his positive test, however, his first start for his new team will be delayed in any event, with organisers of the Argentine race deciding this week to exclude foreign teams due to the Omicron variant.
In November, the 31 year old was fined €5,000 by a court in Monaco after infringing a COVID-19 curfew last April as well as injuring a police officer as he struggled with them, apparently afraid he would be “forced to be vaccinated.”
> Peter Sagan fined for breaking Monaco COVID-19 curfew and injuring police officer
He admitted in court that he was drunk when police stopped him and his brother at around 0030 hours on 25 April.
He was reported to have “struggled like a mad person” as police tried to take him into custody, with one officer sustaining an injury to their hand.
However, Sagan’s lawyers said that he had resisted arrest because he was afraid that he would be “forced to be vaccinated.”
The Slovakian rider spent the night in custody and said afterwards that he could not remember what had happened.
He also issued an apology, blaming the incident on having drunk too much, something he said he was not used to.
111 thoughts on “Peter Sagan tests positive for COVID-19 for second time in less than a year”
Another idiot entitled
Another idiot entitled sportsman too egotistical to get vaccinated?
Maybe he should check the stats on getting Long Covid?
Maybe there’s room in the Aus Airport lock up with Djokovic?
Yep – forgiven him plenty of
Yep – forgiven him plenty of stupidity in the past but this is a bridge too far. Wonder how fellow pros feel about riding in a peleton with unvaxxed riders breathing over them for hours on end?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Funny isn’t it. I’m not exactly sanguine about covid, but have a good hunch that in spite of asthma would be one of the 99%.
Of course I’m not selfish enough to assume that all I come into contact with (or their loved ones) are able to have such a bullish outlook.
So that’s my key motivation to getting jabbed and wearing a mask in public places. The added % protection to myself is gravy.
Is this what “individual responsibility” looks like?…..
It’s all that TB that you go
It’s all that TB that you go about spreading that I’m worried about. Although others say that having Mad Human disease is more of a risk. But that don’t bother me because I’m a cow.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Didn’t do it and you can’t prove it.
It’s the mice you want to look at. When they’re having fun in the feed barn, and then go to the loo. D’you think they wash their paws afterwards? Really?
His body, his choice.
His body, his choice.
With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you’re vaccinated or not (hence the reason why you’re seeing 70,000 cases a day in 90% vaccinated Australia). Sir Kneel Starmer is fully masked and jabbed up, yet has had COVID twice.
The only difference is really in terms of serious illness and death, which for a pro cyclist is negligible – obesity is still the main factor for outcomes in otherwise healthy people.
I will report this to the
I will report this to the mods for peddling false information – there is very good evidence that 3 jabs are protective vs omicron as opposed to being unvaccinated.
Suit yourself, I stated very
Suit yourself, I stated very clearly that being vaccinated protects against illness and death, but please feel free to waste yours and their time.
Garage at Large wrote:
“With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you’re vaccinated or not”— Garage at Large
I say your statement is a lie. Provide peer reviewed evidence that there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you are vaccinated or not or be known as a liar.
There is evidence that two
There is evidence that two vaccinations provide little to no difference in contagion.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/
The Confidence Interval for vaccine effectiveness includes 0% so it’s possible that two vaccines afford no protection whatsoever against infection.
Given the lack of antibody effectiveness I imagine the same will be true of booster jabs after a few months.
Contagion is harder to guage and there’s no evidence about that yet AFAIK but given how transmissible Omicron is I’d be surprised if it was possible to have it and not be contagious.
Correct, as per usual Rich
Correct, as per usual Rich. I’d also add that there is evidence that viral load is identical in infected people regardless of their vaccination status. It’s good to get these points of education out there.
Isn’t the evidence that
Isn’t the evidence that having vaccinations, and then the boosters is better for you (at least before the milder Omnicron) shown in the differences between Hospitalisations and deaths in the different age ranges last year and this year?
I think for the Delta and
I think for the Delta and previous variants that was definitely true.
Unfortunately Omicron is so different that the antibodies produced by vaccination are largely ineffective. You rely on cellular immunity which fades quite quickly.
Why aren’t you Prime Minister
Why aren’t you Prime Minister, Rich? You already fancy yourself as an expert economist and political scientist, and now you are apparently an expert epidemiologist. I’m sure your wall is covered in academic qualifications to back up your pontifications. You don’t appear to be interested in cycling at all, but nobody’s perfect…
I’d resist your urges to bite
I’d resist your urges to bite rich_cb – he has contributed some knowledge from cycling in Wales, he’s definitely got a different perspective to many here, he’s optimistic about the future and he likes a graph / numbers. These are all things I think are valuable – even if I may not agree with where he puts his emphasis or all his predictions.
If the facts are incorrect or incomplete then that’s a great excuse to dig further and come up with some really good information. If logic is faulty then it’s also a challenge but an explanatory one – and persuading people is a whole ‘nuther game!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Perhaps if he stopped calling me “a nasty little troll” when I dare to contradict him, and stopped turning virtually every discussion into a diatribe about how bloody marvellous Brexit is, I would consider it.
Provide some examples of me
Provide some examples of me turning a discussion into a “diatribe about how bloody marvellous Brexit is” and I’ll consider not calling you a troll.
Making completely unfounded inflammatory accusations is a form of trolling after all.
You’ve literally been doing
You’ve literally been doing it today, do you not read what you write?
I didn’t turn the discussion
I didn’t turn the discussion towards Brexit. Other people were discussing Brexit and I joined in.
Am I not allowed to take part in discussions if my opinions differ from yours?
Still waiting for some examples of me turning a discussion towards Brexit. Continuing to make that claim whilst providing no evidence is not doing your “I’m not a troll” argument any favours at all.
I can provide evidence of other people doing so if you’d like to know what it looks like.
Rich_cb wrote:
It it better to link to the paper rather than the new article promoting it.
The paper does not claim what you say.
Remember Nigel the Liar stated “With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you’re vaccinated or not”
Yes it does.
Yes it does.
I link to the article because the salient points are presented in an easy to read format.
Here’s the bit of the paper that demonstrates little to no difference in infection after 2 doses.
Edit: I don’t think it’s actually a confidence interval as I originally stated, it’s a range of potential effectiveness based on different calculations. The Confidence Interval was for natural immunity (0-27%).
But the assertion that vaccination (x2) provides little to no protection is still valid.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yup, that’s how peer review works. Nice big blue arrow on a cropped screen shot
Your PHD will be in the post I expect….
Yes it does. I link to the
Thank you for confirming that vaccination with 3 doses provides 55-80% protection vs Omicron
Nigel the Liar claims that “With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you’re vaccinated or not”
Which is obviously a lie
Also https://www.downtoearth
Also https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/health/covid-19-first-few-peer-reviewed-studies-suggest-vaccine-induced-antibodies-fail-to-protect-from-omicron-80853 confirms the same. For example https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03826-3.
Do you think what we’re witnessing here is a product of mass formation psychosis?
Garage at Large wrote:
Nigel I’m not sure why your are continuing with your lie.
Rich’s post clearly shows that vaccination with 3 doses provides 55-80% effectiveness.
I think it’s human nature to
I think it’s human nature to resist changing our beliefs.
If vaccines (x2) provide little or no protection from symptomatic Omicron (as the best evidence currently suggests) then there is no longer a good argument for vaccine passports/mandates etc.
There is also no plausible moral case to be made against those who choose not to get themselves vaccinated.
It’s a significant challenge to the beliefs held by a lot of people and, unsurprisingly, is being resisted.
Rich_cb wrote:
So have all the other variants gone away then? (It is of course entirely possible that omicron could drive these extinct. I’ve not [yet] heard arguments yet for “let’s encourage it!” as a new take on “herd immunity”.)
Has the immunity to all other variants conferred by the vaccines now expired?
Is there no possibility that further mutations are occuring to which said vaccines may reduce harm?
Genuine questions. Challenge some beliefs and all!
I don’t hold much of a candle for any side but it does seem that there are some opposed attractive belief complexes which draw people e.g. concern about “freedoms / the economy” vs. “we must stop this at (most) costs” or “I don’t want to be responsible for someone else’s illness”.
Sounds like Rich has taken
Sounds like Rich has taken sides with the antivaxer Boo.
I’ve just presented objective
I’ve just presented objective evidence from credible sources.
It so happens that this, partly, supports some of Nige’s argument.
I haven’t seen any real evidence of Nige being an anti-vaxxer. It’s perfectly acceptable to question the efficacy of vaccination. It’s a vital component of informed consent to said vaccination.
I think Delta basically
I think Delta basically killed off all the other variants and now Omicron will kill off Delta.
As a consequence any specific immunity to those variants is now less beneficial.
We’ll have to wait and see if prior vaccination protects against serious illness (Hospital/ITU/Death) from Omicron but I believe the initial data indicates that it might.
Future mutations are likely to originate from Omicron so it’s unlikely that the old vaccines will work against them but never say never.
I think when vaccination definitely prevented you getting COVID and therefore spreading it the moral argument in favour was easy to make. Now it appears that’s not the case I think the moral argument is significantly weaker.
I’m triple jabbed myself but I don’t support mandatory vaccines or vaccine passports.
I strongly believe that people should be free to make their own choices about their own bodies.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes they should, but then they should accept that choices come with consequences and if their choice means they risk harming others then society as a whole has a right to impose restrictions to prevent them doing so.
And if vaccination produces
And if vaccination produces no meaningful protection against symptomatic infection what then?
You can’t argue that you have to get vaccinated to protect others.
As far as I can see the moral argument for vaccine mandates or restrictions for the unvaccinated evaporate in such a scenario.
I thought triple jabbed
I thought triple jabbed equates with 55 to 80% effectiveness ?
Not that I claim to understand these papers.
hirsute wrote:
Unfortunately Nigel the Liar and Rich have now fallen down a rabbit hole together rather than admit old Nige was lying initially.
Which is odd considering their great hero Boris says we have a duty to correct anti-vax nosense…
That’s right but double
That’s right but double jabbed is 0-20.
The worry is that the efficacy of the triple jab will rapidly fall to the same sort of levels.
Given that the booster (mRNA) is designed to only produce antibodies against the spike (which is very different in Omicron) it seems unlikely it will produce lasting immunity.
In that case, you should have
In that case, you should have written
“And if only being double vaccinated produces no meaningful protection against symptomatic infection what then?”
“Given that the booster (mRNA) is designed to only produce antibodies against the spike (which is very different in Omicron) it seems unlikely it will produce lasting immunity.”
Is that your medical opinion ?
I was presenting a
I was presenting a hypothetical scenario to Rendel.
I thought I made that clear by presenting it as a question and specifying ‘in such a scenario’. Apologies if it was not as clear as I intended.
It is my medical opinion.
Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the reply.
I’ll add that I don’t agree with the idea that ‘my body, my choice’
Can you give an example where
Can you give an example where you think it is reasonable for a person (with capacity) to have their bodily autonomy violated?
Rich_cb wrote:
Is catching a potentially deadly virus from someone who has chosen not to take measures to prevent that happening not a violation of bodily autonomy?
Nobody is talking about forcing people to have the vaccine. You know this. People are talking about people who refuse the vaccine having to accept that there may be consequences in terms of their capacity to put others at risk.
I can just about accept that
I can just about accept that argument if the vaccinations work. We know double vaccination is not very effective (if at all) against Omicron.
Should we restrict the movements of the double vaccinated until they get their booster?
What if the booster only works for a few months? What then Rendel?
2 European countries have already made vaccination compulsory for some of their citizens. It seems reasonable to discuss the possibility of that happening here.
Judges make decisions on
Judges make decisions on medical treatment of minors or those unable to make a decision.
People can be sectioned and given medication.
Those people don’t have
Those people don’t have capacity though.
What about an adult of sound mind?
Rich_cb wrote:
I take it that you are ignoring booster doses, which according to ICL have an effectiveness against symptomatic Omicron infection of 55%–80%?
Why not? Society and indeed civilisation is based upon individuals having to do things in order to protect their fellow citizens. In any case nobody is saying that people have to get vaccinated, I don’t know any serious person in this country who has suggested mandatory vaccination. What has been suggested is that if you are not prepared to take appropriate measures to protect others then you will not be allowed to go places where your decision could inflict harm upon others.
You seem to have
You seem to have misunderstood my post.
The key is the word ‘IF’.
Give it another go.
Rich_cb wrote:
The science shows that the vaccination booster does “provide meaningful protection against symptomatic infection” so why are you saying “if”? You seem to have misunderstood the scientific facts. Give it another go.
I’m saying “If” because we
I’m saying “If” because we don’t have any long term data about the efficacy of boosters against Omicron.
If the efficacy drops to a level comparable to double vaccinated then the situation I described becomes extremely pertinent.
Now we’ve set the scene; what would you do in such a situation?
It would seem ridiculous to have mandatory vaccines or restrictions on the unvaccinated in such a scenario would it not?
Omicron is killing off Delta,
Omicron is killing off Delta, it’s already nearly complete in the UK, and the question I guess becomes “what will be next mutation be?”. the good news is that mutation will likely use this less dangerous variant as a starting point, so I’m very hopeful for the year ahead.
Don’t forget that the way deaths are measured “within 28 days of a positive test” will naturally skew death rates higher in the interim (1,500 a day or thereabout die at this time of year, so if 10% of people have Omicron within 28 days you’d expect 150 deaths a day even for non-Omicron reasons).
If you want decent independent coverage btw I like to listen to Dr John Campbell on YouTube – you can see how Omicron is displacing Delta at https://youtu.be/PYLbJ0H8zdc – gives a balanced coverage of latest evidence and trends focusing on the science rather than the politics the mainstream media tend to stick with.
I’ll have a look at that
I’ll have a look at that channel. Thanks.
Yes, excess mortality is probably the best measure we have but even that has its flaws.
I’m also hopeful that Omicron represents the start of milder covid variants and soon it will be no more than another annoying seasonal virus.
Rich_cb wrote:
That seems to be what’s happening from data. We still have delta about and a smattering of others. The more travel we’re happy with the more likely we may get sporadic re-infection with “past” variants of course – that seems to appear in data (see below). Cf. the example of the rather different AIDS virus where different variants persisted in different niches / populations / transmission routes. Anyway it’s still not “just Omicron” as of 21 Dec:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf
Just the data ma’am? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043695/variants-of-concern-technical-briefing-33-data-england-23-december-2021.ods
So “As a consequence any specific immunity to those variants is now less beneficial” maybe true but any immunity will be beneficial if you do meet such a variant, which is still possible. If you’re old or immunocompromised or just plain unlucky that could be the worse for you. Odds are probably in your favour however.
Your note about the moral argument:
If there were no reservoir of variants [EDIT]
unaffected by any vaccine, and if the likelihood of viral mutation producing something which might be handicapped by the vaccine were very low (probably an imponderable – I’m not sure it is in principle however) and ignoring the “how did this jump the species barrier and what are the odds of recurrence of that” question I’d agree. Since we’re not there yet I followed what may have informed your own decision and got vaccines (still waiting on 3rd). Since however it’s probable that this particular virus may follow the eventual pattern of other coronaviruses and decline in potential harm I certainly agree with the policy of “keep weighing up if all the restrictions / spending are overall worthwhile”. We need to be aware of our “just put it back how it was” tendencies though.I’m no more for compulsory vaccination than compulsory cycle helmets. As for vaccine passports – not formed an opinion. We accept (or are force to use) certain forms of “identification” mandated by the state in return for e.g. international travel, access to resources, driving a vehicle. For certain travel you have previously had to have vaccinations, I think. Most of us also gladly identify ourselves and bulk-dump our personal data onto public platforms of uncertain “morality” – because everyone else does. And accept the opinions of our “friends” on there…
This is a very good principle! It’s worth noting we don’t even strictly follow that in the good old liberal(ish) UK however! First example I can think of is the mental health act (which I’m not defending!) but plenty others. As you’re doubtless aware the complication in the viral case is that your decisions about your body can also have impact on others.
So many of our decisions
So many of our decisions impact on others, if I live an unhealthy lifestyle I’m likely to occupy significant healthcare resources when I get older.
At some point this may lead to insufficient resources being available to treat someone else who then suffers a negative outcome.
My poor choices could cause harm for someone else yet I’m not mandated to live healthily.
I suppose the ‘my body, my choice’ argument needs a caveat covering those of sound mind only because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with compulsory mental health treatments, which mostly in favour of.
It’s all about
It’s all about proportionality isn’t it really?
I note it’s the EU countries leading on mandating vaccines, which is unsurprising given their chequered history with totalitarianism and fascism. The fact the mainstream media aren’t picking it up more in the UK should worry everyone, as it has a “let’s see how the land lies” feel to it.
I was surprised that the
I was surprised that the mandating of vaccination in Austria and Italy hadn’t garnered more press coverage.
I’d hope it would never be acceptable here but I wouldn’t put it past Drakeford or Sturgeon to give it a go.
Absolutely, Sturgeon and
Absolutely, Sturgeon and Drakeford are all about compliance. I’m not usually a fan of Neil Oliver, but his video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWN2PV4v0lk is prescient. People are kidding themselves if they think that mandatory vaccines would never happen.
There is no chance of
There is no chance of compulsory vaccination in Scotland. While your politics may put you some distance from a left of centre Sturgeon, any suggestion that mandatory vaccination will be proposed by the current Scottish Government is ridiculous.
Holyrood would not vote for it anyway.
I know you are expressing an opinion, but as someone who lives in Scotland it is not a credible proposition.
I am uncomfortable with mandatory vaccine measures, we need to convince people of the case and bring people with us.
To be honest, I have not heard any credible sources in the UK pushing for mandatory vaccination for the general population.
Scotland and Wales have
Scotland and Wales have consistently pursued stricter restrictions than England.
Given that other European countries have now made vaccines compulsory it doesn’t seem unreasonable to speculate that the more draconian devolved nations may follow suit.
I certainly wouldn’t put it past Drakeford but admittedly I don’t follow Scottish politics anywhere near as closely as Welsh politics so perhaps I’ve been unfair on Sturgeon.
It is true that the Scottish
It is true that the Scottish Government has been more cautious than the UK Government through the pandemic.
Many of the same mistakes have been made ie Care Homes, but I would say that the SG has communicated better and retained more trust than the UK Government. Partly because of a willingness to admit it is not infallible and has made mistakes. I don’t believe they would risk this on a fight on mandatory vaccination, nor would it sit with their claimed values.
I am certainly not an expert on Welsh politics
You certainly haven’t been
You certainly haven’t been unfair on Sturgeon… in fact you’ve been remarkably restrained in your assessment. Bear in mind that the SNP are the authors of the new “Hate crime” bill which makes “stirring up hatred” an offence, even if someone says something in their private home – a law which the CCP would be proud of.
How long until taking an opposing view on Covid, for example, is considered “stirring up hatred”? What about shouting obscenities at car drivers, as some people do here? As we should know from these pages, “hate” is purely subjective term.
All these authoritarian ideas stem from the idea of big government and the power that big government needs to derive in order to sustain and extend itself. Which is why these socialists are addicted to Covid regulations and the power it confers to them – their idea is to stretch their tentacles into every aspect of everyone’s lives, tell you what to think and what is good for you… or else
Judging by the reply of
Judging by the reply of another poster, it looks like you are an expert on Scottish politics compared to others.
He is not worth a reply though.
Rich_cb wrote:
Indeed – but again it’s not binary is it? It’s not just financial impacts on other via your own lifestyle choices either. It’s a question – as always – of degree.
An example: smoking. We – reasonably, I’d say – impose restrictions above those limiting your own potential financial burden on the system. If you’re above a certain age (always restrictions…) you’re free to smoke. Yes, this is made slightly more difficult by e.g. hiding the packets, restrictions on advertising. Nothing to stop you smoking in general, in your private space, in public. Oh – but actually we do say “this can have a (small) impact on others. So you can’t smoke in (list of places)”. I’ve no idea if smoking “at” someone could be considered an offense – I doubt it but not a lawyer…
It’s not “mandated” but we do indeed have – reasonably – a whole range of measures with varying degrees of force or scope aimed at making people “comply” (if you will) on issues that might incur costs / harms to others. We have both “positive” (rewards) and negative. I imagine you’d be perfectly happy with many. (Especially if you’re OK with compulsory mental health treatment – which I’d say is more of a grey area the more experience you have of it).
I certainly wouldn’t defend all of these but it’s not the case that there are none and the particular round are exceptional or outrageous. I’m sure we’ll differ – both in details and in degree of certainty. I imagine you are most likely someone with a greater degree of morality than me – or at least with a more definite morality than me!
Rich_cb wrote:
True … but the NHS already refuses to carry out some procedures in patients where their lifestyle is a mjor factor (obesity, for example) and not just in cases where the lifestyle impacts directly on the procedure itself.
I think that’s more a risk
I think that’s more a risk:benefit thing.
If you’re obese and need a Knee Replacement, for example, then the operation will carry greater risks and deliver fewer benefits.
If the risk:benefit ratio is skewed too much towards risk then the NHS will not routinely fund it.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re not, and rightly so, but if your unhealthy choices put others at risk then you will be sanctioned, e.g. you’re quite entitled to drink yourself into oblivion, but not to drive a car when you’re drunk; you’re entitled to smoke all you want, but not to do it on a petrol station forecourt. In the same way, anyone is at liberty to refuse the vaccine or boosters and take their chances on getting the virus, but should not then expect unencumbered access to venues, transport etc where the unvaccinated are banned for the safety of others.
It’s rather tiresome when you
It’s rather tiresome when you just selectively quote and ignore the wider point Rendel.
An unhealthy lifestyle does put others at risk.
The evidence suggests that a double vaccinated person could be just as great a risk to others as an unvaccinated person, potentially an even greater risk if the unvaccinated person has previously recovered from COVID.
How can you justify different rules for the double vaccinated in that context?
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s hilarious when you are selectively choosing to claim that being double vaccinated is no protection to others, something which is only true of the Omicron variant and not, for example, Delta, and at the same time ignoring the fact that vaccine + boosters offers 60%-85% protection against transmission. Roughly 70% (35M of 52M) of people in the UK who received the first vaccine have now had both second vaccine and booster as well*; you’re trying to sustain your argument on the back of a scenario that is already one applicable only to a minority, and that minority is getting smaller by the day.
*https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations
Omicron represented 95% of
Omicron represented 95% of COVID infections when the government stopped publishing further breakdowns on 31/12.
Given that was just over a month after the first cases were detected it’s safe to assume that Delta is no longer significant.
We know that Omicron protection from the booster drops rapidly and we know that double vaccination offers little or no protection against Omicron.
8 million of those who have received the booster are now over 10 weeks post dose when effectiveness drops to <50% and possibly under <20%.
Given these facts I'll ask again;
How can you justify different rules for the double vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated?
Is it justifiable to have different rules for those who have had boosters given the clearly limited long term efficacy?
Also the politicising of
Also the politicising of science in this country (in fact globally) appears to have gone completely un-noticed by those brainwashed and told what to think. Literally a couple of weeks ago, Neil Ferguson was claiming up to 5,000 people a day were going to be dying of omicron, Sage up to 6,000 a day. Chris Witty stood on TV discrediting the South Africa experience and advice.
When questioned about this by fantastic and fearless journalist Fraser Nelson, the head of Sage modelling Graham Medley admitted “We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform their policy.”
Where is the push-back? Where are the fact-checkers? What is going on? Science should be about pursuing the truth, not what your paymasters want to hear.
And for the record I’ve had two vaccine doses and a booster. But that doesn’t stop me from evaluating the data for myself and casting a critical eye on the machinations of government.
You’re right, I blame their
You’re right, I blame their paymasters, the Labour government. Same with the BBC which is clearly not effectively challenging the narrative coming from Keir Starmer’s premiership. It’s the current reckless disregard of facts and pushing of multiple spurious narratives which means that truth is the casualty – which people like Donald Trump were shut down for trying to stand up to.
In fact I’m would like a bit more challenge from eg. the BBC – albeit they’re funded by the government so you get the BBC that the establishment are brave enough to allow, or not. Otherwise I’m pretty happy that we can indeed easily reach a range of opinions and actual facts. As a baseline see Russia or Hong Kong recently, or try Poland or Hungary if you’d like closer countries.
Being accurate – I’m not sure
Being accurate – I’m not sure it’s that the science is politicised. Science is about estabilishing facts and using them to build explanatory and ideally predictive hypotheses – and correcting these. Politics is about taking decisions and communicating.
If politicians are ignoring the science or misrepresenting it, or alternatively using “but science” as a cover for poor decision-making (or none) then that’s… politics. Ideally – with truth on our side – we could deploy a reasoned and factual style of argument – but of course in human affairs that doesn’t always win out.
Same for scientists making pronouncements about their personal / political beliefs which are incorrect, or those that have crossed the line into politics and are apparently trying to use their “scientific” cred as political coin. (Hello Baron Winson).
If scientists are doing bad science then hopefully the process of science will catch that before the results have negative impacts. This doesn’t always happen of course, see MMR vaccine for one. Open question as to how effective the whole process is for that and indeed what science is “for” (qui bono).
I do like Fraser Nelson.
I do like Fraser Nelson.
Had a digital subscription to the Spectator for a while, may have to renew it.
I think it’s the reporting of the science that is problematic, worst case scenarios are presented as likely outcomes, ultimately this undermines trust and damages public health. The boy who cried wolf and all that.
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-modelling-idUSL1N2T71DU
This Reuters you mean? https:
This Reuters you mean? https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith
Completely unbiased, I’m sure
Garage at Large wrote:
I am not surprised you show such poor intellectual rigor that you resort to a vague insinuation of an ad hominem fallacy rather than address the facts presented.
Rich_cb wrote:
Oh fack me, I can’t read any more of this post
Have you ever changed your
Have you ever changed your beliefs rich ?
Many times.
Many times.
Nuclear power.
Meat Eating.
Cycle Helmets…
Etc.
If the evidence suggests I’m wrong I very much try to change my beliefs accordingly.
Well for starters:
Well for starters:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/health/omicron-vaccines-efficacy.html
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/20/world/worlds-vaccines-likely-wont-prevent-infection-omicron/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-omicron-spreads-what-it-means-to-be-fully-vaccinated-is-changing-11640514603
But more important is real world data and experience. The most infected countries in the world with Omicron are also those with the highest rates of vaccination (Europe, Australia, USA). The experience of South Africa has shown that a low-vaccinated population with high previous infection levels can be relatively unscathed in terms of serious illness and deaths.
In the US, the state with the highest rate of Omicron is New York, where Democrats have forced people to be vaccinated and muzzled for the last two years. This is vs a lower rate in Florida which has a light-touch and pragmatic Republican governor in charge called Ron de Santis, who I’m hoping will be POTUS 47.
Garage at Large wrote:
So you are a liar.
I asked for peer reviwed evidence and you have provided none to back up your assertion.
Liar
There is specific evidence
There is specific evidence and data on the Imperial College link I posted… would you like a helpline number?
Garage at Large wrote:
The link you posted isn’t to a peer reviewed paper
The paper it refers to isn’t peer reviewed: “The work, which is not yet peer-reviewed, is presented in the latest report from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling within the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Jameel Institute, Imperial College London.”
We know you need help; would you like some learning to read?
Don’t bother with him. We
Don’t bother with him. We know he lies. Let him lie to himself that people are actually interested in him and just ignore him.
Rich_cb is worth debating though.
Incorrect. Recent Jabs (i.e.
Incorrect. Recent Jabs (i.e. Boosters) have been shown to reduce incidences of Omicron Infections, hence limit the spread.
https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-the-omicron-variant-and-the-timing-of-covid-19-booster-vaccination
“Strong evidence has accumulated over the past two weeks to indicate that booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to increase protection against infection with the Omicron variant.”
Who mentioned boosters? Not
Who mentioned boosters? Not me.
Garage at Large wrote:
You know the booster is a vaccine, don’t you?
Steve K wrote:
Can’t be. Begins with “B”. Vaccine begins with “V”.
Steve K wrote:
You know the booster is a vaccine, don’t you?— Garage at Large
Logic: all boosters are vaccines, but not all vaccines are boosters. Boosters are a subset of vaccines, like:
All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats. Cats are a subset of animals.
Therefore: when I wrote “vaccine”, it cannot be inferred that I meant “booster”. In the same way as if I wrote “some animals have 8 legs”, it cannot be inferred that I mean “some cats have 8 legs”.
Garage at Large wrote:
You know the booster is a vaccine, don’t you?
— Steve K Logic: all boosters are vaccines, but not all vaccines are boosters. Boosters are a subset of vaccines, like: All cats are animals, but not all animals are cats. Cats are a subset of animals. Therefore: when I wrote “vaccine”, it cannot be inferred that I meant “booster”. In the same way as if I wrote “some animals have 8 legs”, it cannot be inferred that I mean “some cats have 8 legs”.— Garage at Large
You said being vaccinated did not protect against getting covid. To be (as) fully vaccinated (as possible) against the omicron variant (and, indeed, delta) you need to have had the booster. So the person with the faulty logic is – as usual – you. But I have broken my new year’s resolution by feeding the troll.
Steve K wrote:
Ah – but why not just have the booster, and skip the other vaccinations?
Considering he first caught
Considering he first caught Covid in february when he could not have been vaccinated, I don’t feel he can be blamed for that.
After that, who is to say that having antibodies from having recovered from covid is worse than having antibodies from vaccination?
Yes people can catch it twice (as he has) but vaccinated people can also catch it.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Well, scientists: the ZOE/KCL study found:
The ZOE COVID Study, last month, found that vaccines offer greater protection against COVID-19 than natural antibodies. It found that an unvaccinated person with a previous COVID-19 infection has around 65 per cent protection against catching it again. But that two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine gave 71 per cent protection against infection, and two doses of the Pfizer vaccine gave 87 per cent protection.
Additionally, 20% of people who have had Covid have no antibodies to it at all. I guess if you paid someone to undertake an antibody analysis of your blood and found they were as high or higher than they would be in a vaccinated person you could argue that you don’t need the vaccine (though there is evidence that natural immunity decays more rapidly than the vaccine).
Rendel Harris wrote:
That’s less than a 10% difference, and doesn’t justify treating survivors differently from double vaccinated. IMO. In fact the difference between pfizer and AZ is greater, so unless we are going to treat those vaccinated with AZ as higher risk than those vaccinated with pfizer you can’t really justify different treatment for those who have survivied the virus.
I think we should be focusing first on those that are not vaccinated and have never had it.
It’s all a bit like the outcry against low vaccination rates for professional footballers, when they are higher than average for their age group.
wycombewheeler wrote:
That’s fair
If it was like chicken pox this may have merit. The antibodies are produced by the body in response to the pathogen exposed and would be essentially identical, assuming identical pathogen.
As for “who is to say”. Well my money would be on medical advice, not Peter Sagan’s contrariness. He’s hardly covered himself in glory regarding his judgement in the past
Yes they can. Not sure how this stack s up to “he has a point”.
The difference is that going to get a booster (or a facking 1st jab in his case) is that the pathogen is introduced in a controlled low-risk manner, and you are not infectious whilst your immune system responds.
This numpty is relying on his being strong enough to survive should he get it. Which is likely (on both counts: it is highly infectious, but contrary to what some politicians have extolled, this virus is not indiscriminate). Only he is then infectious whilst gaily ignoring other risk mitigations, and helping to spread it to others who are not as capable in fighting it off.
One of the “gotchas” that anti-vaxers seem to think they have is that the vac does not provide 100% immunity, so (the “logic” goes) it’s a con.
Lets see how far they’d test that logic with cancer and chemo. What am I talking about? Some of them do…..
Captain Badger wrote:
I don’t believe any of the covid vaccines actually use the virus itself – just mRNA to make the spike proteins so that the immune system can be primed to recognise it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes, sorry you are correct, most are mRNA vaccines I believe
Interestingly Smallpox was an example of a live vaccine, as is MMR.
There’s an interesting Wiki article on vaccines that goes into detail on the different types.
Yes catching the virus is
Yes catching the virus is more risky, but that’s in the past now. That was last February
And the medical experts have talked about super immunity from people who have had the vaccine and survivied the virus.
So being a covid survivor, his immune response is not worse than someone who has had one dose, while probably not as good as someone who has had 2 doses and a recent booster.
Does he increase the risk to others on the tour? Depends whether they are routinely testing. I would rather be in close contact with someone with a negative test result, than someone who has been fully vaccinated and may be unknowingly positive.
I think people should get vaccinated, but I have a litle more sympathy for those who were infected before they could be vaccinated and now can’t see the point as 1) they survivied it already and 2) they have some level of imunne response and are not comparable to the completely unvaccinated.
With the high transmissibility of the omicron variant I thnk ithe number of people who will escape it completely is vanishingly small, also anyone who wanted the vaccine could have had it. So what is the detriment to others?
wycombewheeler wrote:
In my last post I said that is a fair point
Captain Badger wrote:
yes but then you continued to say that vaccination was controlled and low risk compared to catching the virus, which I didn’t argue against. What I said was I expect he is in a similar position to the vaccinated already.
People who have never had it would be crazy not to take the free vaccine, risks from vaccines are tiny compared to risks from the virus.
But people who have already recovered are only in a marginally worse position that someone with two doses of vaccine (By Rendal’s figures). No one would be pushing a vaccine that offered a 10-20% reduction in risk, which seems to be the difference between the vaccinated and the recovered.
Everyone will come into contact with the virus, even if everyone was vaccinated, there would still be enough people capable of transmitting it.
the ONS survey found 1 in 15 people had it at new year. Are the ONS survey volunteers more or less likely to be anti vaxx than the general population? I would say less as all the nut jobs will not engage with any measures. Therefore, despite being vaccinated and even boostered large numbers are catching it. The majority are probably not even aware they have it.
So my view is that individuals who have recovered are not significant in the risks faced by the general population, because the virus is so prevalent even among the vaccinated, that people are almost certain to be exposed at some point and the reduction in risk from previous infection is close to the reduction from 2 doses of vaccine.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Fair enough
My view is to follow the medical advice, which is take the course and boosters as appropriate, rather than try to extrapolate out of context data on whether a dose of covid = a jab.
Oh, and don’t get pissed in Monaco and assault a police officer cos you’ve come to the zany conclusion that they’re trying to “force vaccinate” you
PS I know you don’t do that, but y’never know someone might….
wycombewheeler wrote:
1. You think completely wrongly. The vast majority of people with the booster wont get omicron.
2. The detriment to others is if you had Covid a year/six months/3 months ago you are increasingly likely to catch Omicron and pass it on than someone who’s been recently vaccinated – either 2nd dose or booster.
We don’t know that they won’t
We don’t know that they won’t get Omicron.
Given how little protection 2 vaccinations give against Omicron I’d suspect that within a few months there will be little or no residual protection from a booster.
I think Wycombewheeler is right, we’re all going to get Omicron at some point regardless of vaccination status.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
so we are now saying boosters every 3 months? because anything longer than that is too high a risk? despite everyone being vaccinated. and risk of serious illness resulting being low.
At some point, we’ll probably
At some point, we’ll probably get updated vaccines that target Omicron, or whatever variants have replaced it at that point, which will re-extend the effective period. The problem there is that you have to somehow reach a transition point where you’re not still just throwing all your efforts into producing as much vaccine as possible (remember that large parts of the world still only have vaccination rates of a few % at the moment, so there’s a long way to go to widespread coverage) and can divert some into keeping up with variants as they emerge.
However, Sagan’s lawyers said
However, Sagan’s lawyers said that he had resisted arrest because he was afraid that he would be “forced to be vaccinated.”
Is that how it works in Monaco? Do the police trawl the streets at night abducting people to vaccinate them?
It does also say that he was
It does also say that he was a little “tired and emotional” (as I believe Private Eye still refers to it…).
brooksby wrote:
That great line from Yes Minister when Jim Hacker is found drunk by the press (from memory so forgive inaccuracies):
“What does the Mail say?”
“They say you were tired and emotional, minister.”
“Well, that’s not too bad.”
“Um, actually it says you were tired and emotional as a newt, minister.”
wycombewheeler wrote:
Yes, it’s on express orders from the Duke of Edinburgh.
Oh you don’t think he actually died do you?….
Didn’t he move to Hong Kong..
Didn’t he move to Hong Kong…?
chrisonatrike wrote:
He’s off-world at the moment
I’ve not checked in with
I’ve not checked in with David Icke in a while so I’ll have to take your word for it.
All I know is being triple
All I know is being triple jabbed doesn’t stop you getting covid !
While much of this thread has
While much of this thread has developed into areas like vaccine efficacy etc, I doubt that this is informing Sagan’s decision to get vaccinated or not. I can’t claim to have much knowledge of Slovakian attitudes to vaccines, but a quick Google suggests that no more than half the population has taken up vaccines.
Maybe he is just reflecting the attitudes of his background?
Djokovic and Serbia are an interesting parallel. Both in the sportsman and vaccination rates.