Coronavirus Outbreak

Status
Not open for further replies.
@leichhardtjunior said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1510105) said:
Duck egg 🤷‍♂️
And here I was thinking science was gonna win me some thumb love on here 🙄

I asked for science. You give me Duck egg. You gotta admit that is pretty funny.

Give us a link to a peer-reviewed paper that backs up your post. If not it ain't science.
 
LOL
I know how this game works. I give you a source, you find a reason to discredit them, regardless of their prior professional achievements, because whatever government agency (let’s just say the TGA or WHO or a bunch of doctors/scientists currently being regulated by them) have since discredited them publicly and hence they are now ineligible for recognition of any from of authorised credibility.
Let’s be honest here, this isn’t about science or statistics, it’s about emotion.
You lot just don’t have it in you to confront the possibility that your government’s have lied to you, the systems and institutions you’re invested in financially, ethically and emotionally are corrupted and subsequently decisions you may have made in good faith are being questioned.
I get it, it’s hard to accept for everyone.
But denial is for the weak minded.
 
@leichhardtjunior said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1510172) said:
LOL
I know how this game works. I give you a source, you find a reason to discredit them, regardless of their prior professional achievements, because whatever government agency (let’s just say the TGA or WHO or a bunch of doctors/scientists currently being regulated by them) have since discredited them publicly and hence they are now ineligible for recognition of any from of authorised credibility.
Let’s be honest here, this isn’t about science or statistics, it’s about emotion.
You lot just don’t have it in you to confront the possibility that your government’s have lied to you, the systems and institutions you’re invested in financially, ethically and emotionally are corrupted and subsequently decisions you may have made in good faith are being questioned.
I get it, it’s hard to accept for everyone.
But denial is for the weak minded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWXazVhlyxQ

I love this song.

I'm pro-science but stuff the science.
 
@leichhardtjunior said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1510252) said:
YouTube
Invalid source

Not when we are having a political/fantasy discussion. If you want to make it science show us the papers. You should have reams of data and papers because the accepted science has reams of data and papers. The accepted science also changes as soon as the data/facts change.
 
Humor and stories are cool. I thought my RATM video was funny.

I get that acceptance is subjective. I have high standards of acceptance. I expect reams of data and papers and I expect new data to change my understanding.

Science doesn't work by cherry picking tiny little bits of information that you like. It ain't like that.
 
I get my information off a family friend
1. He's a paramedic
2. He's worked on the front line
3. He has first hand experience with Covid
 
I gave you the science Earl, it’s a mathematical equation that factors the R0 value of a virus against the effectiveness of the vaccine to reduce community transmission. It doesn’t require reams of data to explain it. The prevalence of repeat breakout’s in highly vaccinated countries proves that the current vaccines aren’t successful in controlling transmission of the virus. Pretty clear I’d have thought.
 
@leichhardtjunior said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1510412) said:
I gave you the science Earl, it’s a mathematical equation that factors the R0 value of a virus against the effectiveness of the vaccine to reduce community transmission. It doesn’t require reams of data to explain it. The prevalence of repeat breakout’s in highly vaccinated countries proves that the current vaccines aren’t successful in controlling transmission of the virus. Pretty clear I’d have thought.

Guessing you say the Flu vaccine is a failure too then.
 
@leichhardtjunior said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1510412) said:
The prevalence of repeat breakout’s in highly vaccinated countries proves that the current vaccines aren’t successful in controlling transmission of the virus.

The data/facts/science aren't as clear cut as your point here. You are sort of correct but I'd call your argument intellectually dishonest. You are putting up a strawman argument in that unless the vaccines stop the virus spreading completely they have no use.

Vaccines clearly work exceptionally well. They are the no 1 tool that is on our personal protection against COVID and the no 1 tool in the public health toolkit to minimize the impact of COVID.

So the flip side of your argument is that the countries/demographic regions that implemented the best combination of restrictions and vaccinations control the virus the best.
 
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/vaccines

Two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine were estimated to be 96% and 92% effective against hospitalisation with the Delta variant, respectively.

The vaccines definitely don't stop COVID spreading completely. They do though have a significant impact.
 
No Swag, I don’t. I assume the Flu vaccine is effective at reducing the symptoms of those who take it. I’m not someone who suffers from Flu, so I don’t take it routinely. I don’t have an issue with other vaccines either, just to be clear Swag, I’ve had them all and so has my daughter to date.
And again Swag, I don’t have an issue with anyone choosing to take these MRNA vaccines because their choices are none of my business.
What I have an issue with is MANDATING AND COERCING PEOPLE TO TAKE THESE MRNA VACCINES.. because the science just doesn’t support that.
See people like Early and others on here are a bit confusing to me. On one hand they claim to have “higher standards of acceptance” than people like me when qualifying the science that supports their opinions and decisions, then on the other hand they’re happy to roll up their sleeves and blaze the scientific trail for a completely new vaccine technology that literally has NO mid to long term health data…? I mean it’s hard to believe someone who’s such a stickler for science, could also be so spontaneous!? That Earls sure is an unpredictable guy? I mean when I think about it, he must’ve made that decision for some other reason than non existent data right? Maybe Earl’s more emotional than he realises or likes to admit Swag?
Actually the more I think about it Swag, I think Earl’s a hypocrite.
I think he made his decision because his government told him too. I think he’s a conformist who’s easily coerced by fear and a natural willingness to take direction and comply with general consensus. He’s probably not comfortable opposing authority or mass opinion or being a minority.
But hey, i can understand that, not everyone’s built for it.
 
@leichhardtjunior said in [Coronavirus Outbreak](/post/1510576) said:
completely new vaccine technology that literally has NO mid to long term health data…?

This is completely false. No vaccines have mid to long term health data other than having hugely beneficial impacts on society. Have you ever met someone with Polio ?

You got me wrong as well. I'm no conformist.
 
Come on Earl, keep it real.
Inactivated virus vaccine’s, Protein conjugate vaccine’s, what are we talking… 50+years?
(And no i don’t have a peer reviewed thesis on hand Earl, but I think we can agree that they’ve been effectively used in humans for multiple generations an hence have plenty of supporting long term data.)
As opposed to covid mRNA vaccine technology, what 18mths old with maybe 10 mths human use?
(Give or take)
Anyway, I can see this is going nowhere and I’ve wasted enough time so I’ll head off.
You guy’s stay here and keep dancing until you’re ready to ask the honest questions.
Who knows maybe I’ll see ya’s out there one day fighting for our kids’ human and social rights?
Stranger things aye!
Keep it real guys 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top