Coronavirus Outbreak

[Chicken_Faced_Killa]

Could the Dragons have just caused the season to go on a hiatus.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/07/04/dragons-investigated-over-claims-of-player-biosecurity-breach/

Surely at the very least the players involved have to be fined and stood down for a few weeks.

fairest form of action would be give the only club that have beaten the Dragons twice and whose initials are WT all their points .....we can't be any fairer than that ....

Sounds like the only logical choice the NRL has to save the season

 

[happy_tiger]

Could the Dragons have just caused the season to go on a hiatus.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/07/04/dragons-investigated-over-claims-of-player-biosecurity-breach/

Surely at the very least the players involved have to be fined and stood down for a few weeks.

fairest form of action would be give the only club that have beaten the Dragons twice and whose initials are WT all their points .....we can't be any fairer than that ....

Sounds like the only logical choice the NRL has to save the season

The most logical choices are the simplest ones .....I think PVL said that once .....

 

[earl]

The longer the vaccine roll out takes ...the worst the virus can mutate into ......


1000% correct although i think that ship has sailed.

Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is still available to give to the whole world whilst they wait for the vaccine, at almost zero risk.....


Up till this point in time I have basically scrolled through most anti jab type posts.
But now, the more I read about Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) the more I like the sound of it @Tiger5150 .
I've had my 1st AZ jab and am not really looking forward to having a 2nd jab...Pfizer maybe, but not AZ.
How do we obtain Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)?

If you survived the first AZ jab there won’t be an issue with the 2nd.

Don't listen to @Tiger5150. No offense but he is basically making stuff up. It's just as bad. His problem is that he is right on the edge of science. The edge of science is consistently wrong. Sure they get it right every so often but a broken clock gets the time right twice per day.

All the vaccines are exceptionally good. If you've had the first does of AZ everything should be good.

There are always people who thrive on the outlier events. Sure vaccines aren't perfect. There have been issues in the past. Overall though vaccines have saved so many lives it's not funny. The edge case is just an outlier and the average person should run away from that stuff.

 

[earl]

Food for thought.

Peer reviewed journal article by German and Dutch scientists based on Israeli field study.

Concludes that the cost to save three lives from COVID is two lives lost to the vaccine.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

EDIT: Please note that there were errors in the methodology of this article and this article has been retracted. I think it’s important to make this point so that it doesn’t color the discussion on this important issue.

I’ve brought this post brought back from the dead because there were errors in the methodology of this article and this article has been retracted. I think it’s important to make this point so that it doesn’t color the discussion on this important issue.

It was always nonsense. I hope you learn from this because you are way too trusting of edge cases.

 

[Tiger5150]

The longer the vaccine roll out takes ...the worst the virus can mutate into ......


1000% correct although i think that ship has sailed.

Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is still available to give to the whole world whilst they wait for the vaccine, at almost zero risk.....


Up till this point in time I have basically scrolled through most anti jab type posts.
But now, the more I read about Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) the more I like the sound of it @Tiger5150 .
I've had my 1st AZ jab and am not really looking forward to having a 2nd jab...Pfizer maybe, but not AZ.
How do we obtain Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)?

If you survived the first AZ jab there won’t be an issue with the 2nd.

Don't listen to @Tiger5150.

Oh. I wished I had said that. Oh wait I did.

No offense but he is basically making stuff up.

In every post I make here where I make any assertion, I have always posted the study or reference that either supports it or formulates the hypothesis. Every time.

If you genuinely mean no offense, I’d invite you to post the examples of the stuff I have “made up”. I know you won’t because it’s becoming abundantly clear that you don’t even read what I say or my references. It’s clear you have some personal problem with me.

 

[Tiger5150]

Food for thought.

Peer reviewed journal article by German and Dutch scientists based on Israeli field study.

Concludes that the cost to save three lives from COVID is two lives lost to the vaccine.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

EDIT: Please note that there were errors in the methodology of this article and this article has been retracted. I think it’s important to make this point so that it doesn’t color the discussion on this important issue.

I’ve brought this post brought back from the dead because there were errors in the methodology of this article and this article has been retracted. I think it’s important to make this point so that it doesn’t color the discussion on this important issue.

It was always nonsense. I hope you learn from this because you are way too trusting of edge cases.

You posted it was nonsense at the time and I invited you to point out exactly what was wrong with it and you didn’t or couldn’t. You clearly didn’t or couldn’t read it because in your response you talked about efficacy and the study didn’t. Even in this post you demonstrate your ignorance because the study had nothing to do with “edge cases”.

On the other hand, at the same time, @tigger or @tigga (can’t look up which right now) also had serious concerns about it but he/she was capable of clearly articulating them and listing them here. I agreed with some of those concerns and we were able to sensibly discuss the areas where there was some difference. Tigger was able to do that because he read the article, had the intellectual capacity and doesn’t have a personal vendetta against me (or can get past it). You fall short on 1-3 of those items.

Did I learn from it? No I learned nothing from it because this is EXACTLY how science is supposed to work. Some highly qualified and tenured scientists tested a hypothesis using a large controlled data field and derived their hypothesis into a paper. This was peer reviewed and published. Peer review continues after publication and through this process the hypothesis has been falsified. I don’t know what the flaw in the methodology was, might have been what Tigger said, we’ll never know.

 

[earl]

If you genuinely mean no offense, I’d invite you to post the examples of the stuff I have “made up”. I know you won’t because it’s becoming abundantly clear that you don’t even read what I say or my references. It’s clear you have some personal problem with me.

I explained it previously. You go for edge cases. The consensus is typically correct. You look for the edge case. It's something you somehow go for. The average person shouldn't listen to you because you lead them astray and most of the time you are going to be incorrect.

Your outlook on vaccines was clearly nonsense. It's exactly the same as your view on how the virus originated. You have a really low burden of proof for edge case science. I think you indoctrinate yourself via the Internet.

Sometimes you may be correct but it's going to be extremely rare.

 

[BAGNF05]

Could the Dragons have just caused the season to go on a hiatus.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/07/04/dragons-investigated-over-claims-of-player-biosecurity-breach/

Surely at the very least the players involved have to be fined and stood down for a few weeks.

fairest form of action would be give the only club that have beaten the Dragons twice and whose initials are WT all their points .....we can't be any fairer than that ....

Nah we would have to watch us play again. 24 is more than enough.

 

[Tiger5150]

If you genuinely mean no offense, I’d invite you to post the examples of the stuff I have “made up”. I know you won’t because it’s becoming abundantly clear that you don’t even read what I say or my references. It’s clear you have some personal problem with me.

I explained it previously. You go for edge cases.

Just as I suspected, you cant post one single example of me making stuff up....noted.

The consensus is typically correct.

You have zero understanding of science. Consensus is the opposite of the scientific method.


Your outlook on vaccines was clearly nonsense.

Enlighten us all.....what is my outlook on vaccines?

>It's exactly the same as your view on how the virus originated.

The lab leak theory that is now the null hypothesis?

>You have a really low burden of proof for edge case science. I think you indoctrinate yourself via the Internet.

As I have posted many times, I dont "indoctrinate" myself via the internet, I *literally* back up eveything with peer reviewed scientific papers. You on the other hand have not backed up a single thing you have said about me.

Earl, you clearly have a burr up ya butt about me. I dont care. If you are going to make these sweeping statements about me, be a man and back them up or else give it a break and shut up about me.

So either.....


* Post what I have "made up"

* Clearly explain "my outlook on vaccines"

Or just go away. THis is a forum and we can all discuss what we want. I make the effort to back up my comments, you dont have the integrity or capacity to do the same.

 

[earl]

Or just go away. THis is a forum and we can all discuss what we want. I make the effort to back up my comments, you dont have the integrity or capacity to do the same.

The second problem is that even when it's clear you're wrong you can't accept it. It's cool dude. I won't go into it again.

 

[Tiger5150]

Or just go away. THis is a forum and we can all discuss what we want. I make the effort to back up my comments, you dont have the integrity or capacity to do the same.

The second problem is that ***even when it's clear you're wrong*** you can't accept it. It's cool dude. I won't go into it again.

You realise that I am the one that posted that the study I posted was wrong dont you? I could have said nothing but an intelligent, informed conversation is dependent on good information. Coincidentally that is exactly how the scientific process works.

So you post that "even when its clear your wrong you cant accept it", in response to me bring to the attention of everyone that the study I posted had been retracted. That is some kind of special.

So again....you are again for about the tenth time unable to post examples or backing up what you say. Again cant even articulate my "outlook on vaccines". Have the guts to back it up, or give it up.

Now scuttle away.

 

[tigger]

Food for thought.

Peer reviewed journal article by German and Dutch scientists based on Israeli field study.

Concludes that the cost to save three lives from COVID is two lives lost to the vaccine.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

Even if you accept the veracity of that study, an effective vaccine program will achieve more than just saving lives from Covid.

An effective vaccine program gives society the confidence to revert to normal pre-covid activities. It may allow us to avoid shutdowns and to reopen our national (and state) borders. In other word, it may revitalise our economy.

By focussing solely on deaths from covid and deaths following vaccination (not sure whether this study ensured that there was a causal link) it effectively ignores all of the people who catch and suffer from Covid 19 without dying. It ignores the ongoing health issues that those people may suffer. It ignores the cost of treating those people. It ignores the costs and the strain placed on hospitals. It ignores the impacts of all the other medical procedures that need to be foregone as a result of hospitals being overloaded. It ignores the costs associated with contact tracing and other aspects of the pandemic management.

Even if the study has been correctly conducted, it remains a very narrow perspective on a much broader issue.


Sure, I agree with most of what you are saying, but all of this comes down to this.........at what cost? Vaccines for all....at what cost.

This study mathematically concludes to save 3 lives from Covid, it costs 2 lives from the vaccine, but you also need to look at life years rather than lives. Covid dispropoertionally kills older people whilst younger people seem much less affected by it. Paradoxically the vaccine seems to impact (and kill) younger people disproportionally.

EDIT: Please note that there were errors in the methodology of this article and this article has been retracted. I think it’s important to make this point so that it doesn’t color the discussion on this important issue.

Noted. Thanks for the edit. If you ever find out what the errors in the methodology were, I would be interested in knowing. (I'll also try to find out).

With something like vaccines, I suspect that it might be about attempting to quantify the absence of something and the impact that the thing which is the subject of your study has on the outcome of the study. (For example, testing whether safety audits are worthwhile. We do lots of them, they cost heaps and we don't seem to have many accidents. So are they really worthwhile. Expressed as, the average cost of audits exceeds the average cost of accidents etc).

But I'm speculating.

 

[Tiger5150]

Food for thought.

Peer reviewed journal article by German and Dutch scientists based on Israeli field study.

Concludes that the cost to save three lives from COVID is two lives lost to the vaccine.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

Even if you accept the veracity of that study, an effective vaccine program will achieve more than just saving lives from Covid.

An effective vaccine program gives society the confidence to revert to normal pre-covid activities. It may allow us to avoid shutdowns and to reopen our national (and state) borders. In other word, it may revitalise our economy.

By focussing solely on deaths from covid and deaths following vaccination (not sure whether this study ensured that there was a causal link) it effectively ignores all of the people who catch and suffer from Covid 19 without dying. It ignores the ongoing health issues that those people may suffer. It ignores the cost of treating those people. It ignores the costs and the strain placed on hospitals. It ignores the impacts of all the other medical procedures that need to be foregone as a result of hospitals being overloaded. It ignores the costs associated with contact tracing and other aspects of the pandemic management.

Even if the study has been correctly conducted, it remains a very narrow perspective on a much broader issue.


Sure, I agree with most of what you are saying, but all of this comes down to this.........at what cost? Vaccines for all....at what cost.

This study mathematically concludes to save 3 lives from Covid, it costs 2 lives from the vaccine, but you also need to look at life years rather than lives. Covid dispropoertionally kills older people whilst younger people seem much less affected by it. Paradoxically the vaccine seems to impact (and kill) younger people disproportionally.

EDIT: Please note that there were errors in the methodology of this article and this article has been retracted. I think it’s important to make this point so that it doesn’t color the discussion on this important issue.

Noted. Thanks for the edit. If you ever find out what the errors in the methodology were, I would be interested in knowing. (I'll also try to find out).

With something like vaccines, I suspect that it might be about attempting to quantify the absence of something and the impact that the thing which is the subject of your study has on the outcome of the study. (For example, testing whether safety audits are worthwhile. We do lots of them, they cost heaps and we don't seem to have many accidents. So are they really worthwhile. Expressed as, the average cost of audits exceeds the average cost of accidents etc).

But I'm speculating.

Im going on memory, but my memory is that I did see a potential major hole as they just stated the number of deaths per vaccine doses but I didnt see the close out that proved causality. It could have been this.

The whole study was basically a mathematics exercise and its possible there was a computational error.

I also saw another article collapse recently but it collapsed the other way. Paraphrasing massively but the article was demonstrating the safety of the vaccines but they had made the error of calculating deaths and adverse reactions per dose rather than per person, so their results were halved (results were twice as bad as they reported).

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

Background and objectives: An effective treatment option is not yet available for SARS-CoV2, which causes the COVID-19 pandemic and whose effects are felt more and more every day. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is among the drugs whose effectiveness in treatment has been investigated. In this study; it was aimed to investigate the presence of gene mutations that alter Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) metabolism and cause toxic effects in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) use in the treatment of patients without mutation.
Conclusions: According to the findings obtained, Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) can provide an increase in clinical recovery, improvement in prognostic laboratory parameters and a decrease in mortality rates even when used in patients with severe COVID-19. Consequently, Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) should be considered as an alternative drug that can be used in the treatment of COVID-19 disease or as an additional option to existing protocols.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947344/

 

[Merlot]

who is policing the latest lockdown,my sleepy litte hollow,swelled2 double itssize on sunday with happy tourists,coughcough sneeze,sit tight people

 

[Tiger5150]

Background and objectives: An effective treatment option is not yet available for SARS-CoV2, which causes the COVID-19 pandemic and whose effects are felt more and more every day. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is among the drugs whose effectiveness in treatment has been investigated. In this study; it was aimed to investigate the presence of gene mutations that alter Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) metabolism and cause toxic effects in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) use in the treatment of patients without mutation.
Conclusions: According to the findings obtained, Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) can provide an increase in clinical recovery, improvement in prognostic laboratory parameters and a decrease in mortality rates even when used in patients with severe COVID-19. Consequently, Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) should be considered as an alternative drug that can be used in the treatment of COVID-19 disease or as an additional option to existing protocols.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33947344/

If you look at that study, first of all, it was a very small study (60 people) and the results are not that encouraging. 6 people on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) still died opposed to 9 in the control and only a 20% differential in improvement in the ones who didnt die.

Its not nothing but its not much.

If you look at the recent meta analysis posting in the American Journal of Therapeutics, you can see that Ivermecting is very effective as a prophylactic (79-91%), very effective as a treatment for Covid if started early (85%) but not as effective in advanced cases like in the study you posted. The meta analysis shows no benefit from Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) once a patient needs mechanical ventilation.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

 

[hobbo1]

who is policing the latest lockdown,my sleepy litte hollow,swelled2 double itssize on sunday with happy tourists,coughcough sneeze,sit tight people

Where you at ?

 

[Merlot]

be interesting 2 see data in 5years time on effects of un tested vaccines rushed in 2 communities

 

[Merlot]

who is policing the latest lockdown,my sleepy litte hollow,swelled2 double itssize on sunday with happy tourists,coughcough sneeze,sit tight people

Where you at ?

down the hill n over the ferry

 

[hobbo1]

who is policing the latest lockdown,my sleepy litte hollow,swelled2 double itssize on sunday with happy tourists,coughcough sneeze,sit tight people

Where you at ?

down the hill n over the ferry

Spencer ?