Coronavirus Outbreak

[CocaCola]

Where did allnthe Influenza deaths go? They couldn't be hiding under any other death statistic right? You would have to be 'CraZy' to consider that.


You dont think that mask wearing, society wide lockdowns, social distancing designed to stop a respiratory disease 3 times more transmissible than influenza might have had an impact on the number of influenza cases (and therefore deaths) the last 18 months? Would that seem 'CraZy' to you?

Influenza didn't magically disappear. We haven't been in lockdown the the entire time.. If you want to believe we have gone to 0 Influenza deaths & over 900 Covid deaths, and there's no way the stats have been manipulated, good for you.

 

[tiger_one]

I received my 2nd jab of AZ today..bit of a sore arm ..

Asked for a lollipop

Must give you some peace of mind.

How's things with your son (if that's not imposing)?

 

[jadtiger]

Where did allnthe Influenza deaths go? They couldn't be hiding under any other death statistic right? You would have to be 'CraZy' to consider that.


Enjoy your next rally

 

[earl]

Where did allnthe Influenza deaths go? They couldn't be hiding under any other death statistic right? You would have to be 'CraZy' to consider that.



Enjoy your next rally

He solved it. The whole thing is a scam. It was only the flu.

Seriously you wonder how anyone could be so naive.

It's all really the flu.


 

[earl]

Asked for a lollipop

I bet you did.

 

[swag_tiger]

I received my 2nd jab of AZ today..bit of a sore arm ..

Asked for a lollipop

Which flavour did you get?
You seem like a strawberry and cream kinda guy.

 

[happy_tiger]

I received my 2nd jab of AZ today..bit of a sore arm ..

Asked for a lollipop

Gave you a lollipop to shut you up and make you stop crying like a Manly supporter ......

 

[hobbo1]

I received my 2nd jab of AZ today..bit of a sore arm ..

Asked for a lollipop


 

[Tiger5150]

Where did allnthe Influenza deaths go? They couldn't be hiding under any other death statistic right? You would have to be 'CraZy' to consider that.


You dont think that mask wearing, society wide lockdowns, social distancing designed to stop a respiratory disease 3 times more transmissible than influenza might have had an impact on the number of influenza cases (and therefore deaths) the last 18 months? Would that seem 'CraZy' to you?

Influenza didn't magically disappear. We haven't been in lockdown the the entire time.. If you want to believe we have gone to 0 Influenza deaths & over 900 Covid deaths, and there's no way the stats have been manipulated, good for you.

Occams razor mate. To me the most likely and easiest to believe reason is that social distancing, lockdowns, hand sanitizing and masks totally wiped out influenza for the last 18 months. That is actually what I would expect and would be surprised if there were many (or any) deaths at all. Bear in mind that influenza is completely seasonal and the tightest restrictions have been in both winters.

In addition, I have been tested for covid 4 times now and each time, when I received my results, they also tested for influenza and I received neg results for all. They are still testing for both.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

 

[earl]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

You need to be extremely careful using any model like you've used it here. The predictive ability of these models isn't that good.

I work in a big IT department. I was in a meeting and one young guy was stating our predicted business next year was something like $101,000,205. That number was completely meaningless because there was no way he had the ability to predict that figure with that degree of accuracy.

The problem with cherry picking a piece of information like you've done is that it isn't meant to be used like that.

 

[Tiger5150]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

You need to be extremely careful using any model like you've used it here. The predictive ability of these models isn't that good.

Havent you been raving about the Doherty Report in this thread telling us all to treat it like gospel? Listen to the Health Department advice?

The problem with cherry picking a piece of information like you've done is that ***it isn't meant to be used like that.***

The Doherty Institute Report, that was commissioned by the Govt, to provide information for them to make decisions on *how to move forward* in the pandemic and t*he likelihood of opening back up*......isnt meant to be used to provide information to make decisions on how to move forward in the pandemic and the likelihood of opening back up?

Is it for picking lotto numbers?

 

[Tim Sheens]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

You need to be extremely careful using any model like you've used it here. The predictive ability of these models isn't that good.

I work in a big IT department. I was in a meeting and one young guy was stating our predicted business next year was something like $101,000,205. That number was completely meaningless because there was no way he had the ability to predict that figure with that degree of accuracy.

The problem with cherry picking a piece of information like you've done is that it isn't meant to be used like that.

Cherry picking my arse. That is the predictive figure from that which you preach to all and sundry is the basis for opening up.

 

[Tiger5150]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

You need to be extremely careful using any model like you've used it here. The predictive ability of these models isn't that good.

Also Earl....*"The Doherty report is based on a massive data-set the like of which we’ve probably never seen. Why argue with it ?"*

https://weststigersforum.com/topic/30513/coronavirus-outbreak/13484

 

[earl]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

You need to be extremely careful using any model like you've used it here. The predictive ability of these models isn't that good.

I work in a big IT department. I was in a meeting and one young guy was stating our predicted business next year was something like $101,000,205. That number was completely meaningless because there was no way he had the ability to predict that figure with that degree of accuracy.

The problem with cherry picking a piece of information like you've done is that it isn't meant to be used like that.

Cherry picking my arse. That is the predictive figure from that which you preach to all and sundry is the basis for opening up.

You've taken one little piece of information in that report and you are using it incorrectly. That report doesn't guarantee that many people will die. Do you understand that point ?

 

[earl]

Here is some information on children developing COVID.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00198-X/fulltext
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/08/10/hundreds-us-children-hospital-covid-should-uk-worried/

>Implications of all the available evidence
>Our data confirm that COVID-19 in UK school-aged children is usually of short duration and low symptom burden. Some children do have longer illness duration, and our findings validate their experiences; however, most of these children usually recover with time. Our findings emphasise that appropriate resources will be necessary for any child with prolonged illness, whether due to COVID-19 or other illnesses. Our study provides crucial data to inform discussions about the effect and implications of the pandemic on health-care resource allocation.

>A report from the American Academy of Paediatrics last month noted that although "it appears" that severe illness due to Covid-19 is "uncommon" among children, "there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children."

The effect on children does not appear to be anything like the effect on older people.

There are vaccines in progress for 5-11 yo's.

There doesn't appear to be a huge swathes of data/reports on this.

The Doherty report is not the right place to be predicting figures of death amongst children from COVID. It's not the right place to argue the reproductive rate or the deaths of any people in certain demographics. It's to be used as a guideline on which to base policy decisions. You'd get a lot more value out of looking at the various scenarios in which we use harsh lockdowns and when we don't. That is much broader and much more likely to have predictive ability.

If I find or more data/reports come out from valid sources I'll definitely provide that information. At this point though I don't believe there is any reason at all to push the panic button.

 

[earl]

One other point I'd make is that there is no way we are going into a Florida type situation from where we are today.

We are not going to just let it rip. This has been clearly articulated by NSW health.

It's not a black and white argument in relation to harsh lockdowns like we are in now compared to complete freedom.

In Florida the nutter there has mandated against kids wearing masks. We won't do anything as stupid as this.

I am paraphrasing but Dr Chant said we may for instance have to wear masks indoors for the next 5 year in certain situations.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Honest question Earl, do you have split personality disorder?

 

[earl]

Honest question Earl, do you have split personality disorder?

Explain mate. I'm trying to provide the facts and interpret the facts correctly.

To answer your question though:-

https://youtu.be/umDr0mPuyQc

 

[earl]

Gladys Berejiklian said it last night.

What did she say ? Every time I listen to her she gets it pretty much right. The last poor comment I heard her state was that NSW can handle anything. No area has been able to handle the Delta strain without high vaccination rates.

I can't remember the exact quote but it was along the lines that we are going to have to accept that there will be deaths, more deaths than we are having now, but we have to accept that and it is the reality we face. Just like we do with the Flu.

Yep the narrative has changed…it’s just a numbers and data game now..

It's changing now so that case numbers aren't even an issue. It think the focus is now on hospitalizations and maybe deaths.

We aren't used to seeing things like this.

That X amount of death is acceptable is not acceptable to me..

If the table 5.6 that I saw has Doherty expecting 57 deaths of <16 year olds that are yet to be availed vaccination in the first 180 days after opening at 80% comes true, such will not be acceptable to a hell of a lot people.

You need to be extremely careful using any model like you've used it here. The predictive ability of these models isn't that good.

Also Earl....*"The Doherty report is based on a massive data-set the like of which we’ve probably never seen. Why argue with it ?"*

https://weststigersforum.com/topic/30513/coronavirus-outbreak/13484

@Cultured_Bogan - I assume this is what you are talking about.

I don't want to get into an argument with this guy but I'll state a couple of points:-

1. This guy has gotten it wrong consistently. He has made so many big claims and they've basically all been wrong.
2. He pushed so hard a podcast that is a centrepiece of the disinformation within the COVID pandemic. I'm not even joking. I found his podcast while searching disinformation. It was criminal. It was pulled off YouTube. I posted an accurate video from Vox and he complained and it was pulled down from here. I don't care but that is crazy stuff.

The Doherty report is based on the massive data sets that we have from reputable organizations like the CDC. It provides policy guidelines. It is not mean to be used via cherry picking specific data points in any way. It's to provide policy guidelines.

When people cherry pick specific data points to make points they are using the data inaccurately. You could cherry pick any predictive figure in that report and I bet the number will differ in the future.

We should question how children are likely to be affected. My personal opinion is that the data isn't great on this topic but it's probably not great because kids are affected in general a lot less than adults.