WOULD YOU VACCINATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH SPORTS

[jirskyr]

And would the vaccines of which you speak be the ones that the looney left said where no good because Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon initiated them?

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon did NOT initiate vaccine production and the left of politics has not criticised vaccine production,it is the right wing morons who have and are still doing that.
As usual you have zero idea

Yes he did. Yes they did. No they did*t,

You must still be watching CNN.

No he didn't Col. He put in a massive advance order with a pharmaceutical company pending approval.

Research started on vaccines the minute it was realised this virus was out of hand. By your logic if I put in an advance order of 2000 2022 Camaro's, I've initated development of the 2022 Camaro lmao...

Actually the good news is Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon didn't just initiate the vaccines, he created them, it was his idea. He got this idea after being the first human to land on Mars, he's been living there for a few months, spectacular, totally knew he could do it, plenty of space for golf courses if you don't mind playing in one giant sand trap.

He got the idea of creating the vaccines after calling up his buddy Kim Jong-un, who had just finished shooting 10 consecutive holes-in-one. Dennis Rodman was there and raised the possibility of creating anti-COVID weapons to explode over the world's populations.

 

[jirskyr]

Mainstream science is correct the vast majority of the time. If you stick to the mainstream view you will be correct 99.9% of the time. It’s not you either. It’s the way science requires proof to verify facts. Science is reality. No single persons opinion matters.

Also, in the 0.01% where current theory is proven wrong, science adopts an improved theory. It's intentionally transparent. It's the search for truth above all else. It's driven by testing and re-testing, and the delivery of data that must bear the weight of scrutiny from peers (experts).

 

[mrem]

Everyone lives happily ever after and does what is right for them

But they don't, they die

Mate the chances of dying from a virus that has a 98% suvival rate is slim

Just so you are aware a 2% chance of dying from something is actually quite high. I don't know if you understand mortality risks.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html
For example in the United States, your average lifetime risk of dying from colorectal cancer is 1.83%. You risk of dying from lung cancer is 5.49%, and of prostate cancer 2.44%.

If COVID was a cancer, it would be in the top 3 killers of Americans in the cancer group.

Primary difference is these are lifetime cancer risks and you can't catch cancer from someone else. If you contract COVID, that 2% mortality is real and immediate - you have a 2% chance of death within the next 1-2 months.

Are we working with total probabilities or conditional probabilities here?

ie. the probability of catching Covid say 10%, the probability of dying once caught, say 2%, total probability of dying from Covid, 0.2%. Have I got this right?

The probabilities in the link seem to be a bit different. The risk of developing colorectal cancer is 4.41%, the probability of dying once developing cancer, approx. 40%. Total risk of dying from colorectal cancer is 1.83%

 

[earl]

Also, in the 0.01% where current theory is proven wrong, science adopts an improved theory.

I was going to add this. Edge cases are sometimes correct. The great thing about science is that edge case then becomes main stream science.

 

[mrem]

Mainstream science is correct the vast majority of the time. If you stick to the mainstream view you will be correct 99.9% of the time. It’s not you either. It’s the way science requires proof to verify facts. Science is reality. No single persons opinion matters.

Also, in the 0.01% where current theory is proven wrong, science adopts an improved theory. It's intentionally transparent. It's the search for truth above all else. It's driven by testing and re-testing, and the delivery of data that must bear the weight of scrutiny from peers (experts).

I think we need to careful with this. Although I certainly agree with the sentiment here. How long is it before something becomes mainstream? If something becomes mainstream, does all research need to stop? It would seem to be a huge waste of resources for smart people to be researching something that is correct 99.9% of the time. Is this number true across all scientific disciplines? ie. math and sociology.

How do we tell if empirical research is correct? It might be intuitive to think scientific Journals, but there are issues here, such as p-hacking and publication bias. Journals tend to publish positive findings, but not report insignificant results. Which can create issues when aggregating results as in meta analysis. If there is a publication bias, this will bias what we consider to be mainstream

There is has also been a crisis in scientific research with many results unable to be replicated. See for example
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

I love science and research in general, so I don't want to be overly critical. But I think we need to be careful with statements like mainstream science is 99.9% accurate.

Although, it could just be about semantics. It might be true that mainstream science is actually 99.9% accurate, but something like 10% of science could be considered mainstream.

 

[Pascoes_barber]

Everyone lives happily ever after and does what is right for them

But they don't, they die

Mate the chances of dying from a virus that has a 98% suvival rate is slim

Just so you are aware a 2% chance of dying from something is actually quite high. I don't know if you understand mortality risks.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html
For example in the United States, your average lifetime risk of dying from colorectal cancer is 1.83%. You risk of dying from lung cancer is 5.49%, and of prostate cancer 2.44%.

If COVID was a cancer, it would be in the top 3 killers of Americans in the cancer group.

Primary difference is these are lifetime cancer risks and you can't catch cancer from someone else. If you contract COVID, that 2% mortality is real and immediate - you have a 2% chance of death within the next 1-2 months.

Are we working with total probabilities or conditional probabilities here?

ie. the probability of catching Covid say 10%, the probability of dying once caught, say 2%, total probability of dying from Covid, 0.2%. Have I got this right?

I would suggest likelihood of catching Covid once we've 'opened back up' would be closer to 95% than 10%.

 

[mike]

Mainstream science is correct the vast majority of the time. If you stick to the mainstream view you will be correct 99.9% of the time. It’s not you either. It’s the way science requires proof to verify facts. Science is reality. No single persons opinion matters.

Also, in the 0.01% where current theory is proven wrong, science adopts an improved theory. It's intentionally transparent. It's the search for truth above all else. It's driven by testing and re-testing, and the delivery of data that must bear the weight of scrutiny from peers (experts).

I think we need to careful with this. Although I certainly agree with the sentiment here. How long is it before something becomes mainstream? If something becomes mainstream, does all research need to stop? It would seem to be a huge waste of resources for smart people to be researching something that is correct 99.9% of the time. Is this number true across all scientific disciplines? ie. math and sociology.

How do we tell if empirical research is correct? It might be intuitive to think scientific Journals, but there are issues here, such as p-hacking and publication bias. Journals tend to publish positive findings, but not report insignificant results. Which can create issues when aggregating results as in meta analysis. If there is a publication bias, this will bias what we consider to be mainstream

There is has also been a crisis in scientific research with many results unable to be replicated. See for example
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

I love science and research in general, so I don't want to be overly critical. But I think we need to be careful with statements like mainstream science is 99.9% accurate.

Although, it could just be about semantics. It might be true that mainstream science is actually 99.9% accurate, but something like 10% of science could be considered mainstream.

Science is a process underpinned by the scientific method. Knowledge comes from this process of continually testing and adjusting through experiments and observations. The process works.
—
The scientific method is a method of research with defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. ... A scientific theory is a generally accepted, thoroughly tested and confirmed explanation for a set of observations or phenomena. Scientific theory is the foundation of scientific knowledge.
—

 

[Radoush]

Guys, If you are confused or are on the fence surrounding the vaccine go and see your GP. Voice your concerns about it. Then make a decision.

My GP said no wait to after stage 4 trials finished it's to dangerous yet and doesn't stop you from getting or passing it on I trust him smart guy

 

[mrem]

Mainstream science is correct the vast majority of the time. If you stick to the mainstream view you will be correct 99.9% of the time. It’s not you either. It’s the way science requires proof to verify facts. Science is reality. No single persons opinion matters.

Also, in the 0.01% where current theory is proven wrong, science adopts an improved theory. It's intentionally transparent. It's the search for truth above all else. It's driven by testing and re-testing, and the delivery of data that must bear the weight of scrutiny from peers (experts).

I think we need to careful with this. Although I certainly agree with the sentiment here. How long is it before something becomes mainstream? If something becomes mainstream, does all research need to stop? It would seem to be a huge waste of resources for smart people to be researching something that is correct 99.9% of the time. Is this number true across all scientific disciplines? ie. math and sociology.

How do we tell if empirical research is correct? It might be intuitive to think scientific Journals, but there are issues here, such as p-hacking and publication bias. Journals tend to publish positive findings, but not report insignificant results. Which can create issues when aggregating results as in meta analysis. If there is a publication bias, this will bias what we consider to be mainstream

There is has also been a crisis in scientific research with many results unable to be replicated. See for example
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

I love science and research in general, so I don't want to be overly critical. But I think we need to be careful with statements like mainstream science is 99.9% accurate.

Although, it could just be about semantics. It might be true that mainstream science is actually 99.9% accurate, but something like 10% of science could be considered mainstream.

Science is a process underpinned by the scientific method. Knowledge comes from this process of continually testing and adjusting through experiments and observations. The process works.
—
The scientific method is a method of research with defined steps that include experiments and careful observation. ... A scientific theory is a generally accepted, thoroughly tested and confirmed explanation for a set of observations or phenomena. Scientific theory is the foundation of scientific knowledge.
—

Thanks for those definitions. Not sure what it has to do with my post though.

 

[cochise]

Guys, If you are confused or are on the fence surrounding the vaccine go and see your GP. Voice your concerns about it. Then make a decision.

My GP said no wait to after stage 4 trials finished it's to dangerous yet and doesn't stop you from getting or passing it on I trust him smart guy

I would be surprised if a doctor said this.

 

[coivtny]

Guys, If you are confused or are on the fence surrounding the vaccine go and see your GP. Voice your concerns about it. Then make a decision.

My GP said no wait to after stage 4 trials finished it's to dangerous yet and doesn't stop you from getting or passing it on I trust him smart guy

My doctor said much the same. I trust him too. He has this really long bone through his nose and dances a mean watusi.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

If you listened to what the Director of the Intensive Care
Ward at RPA had to say today during the press confirmation, there should be no hesitation in getting vaccinated.

 

[tiger_one]

If you listened to what the Director of the Intensive Care
Ward at RPA had to say today during the press confirmation, there should be no hesitation in getting vaccinated.

Clearest explanation yet of what's what, from the heart and to the point clinically.
No excuse - just do it.

 

[dazza65]

Guys, If you are confused or are on the fence surrounding the vaccine go and see your GP. Voice your concerns about it. Then make a decision.

My GP said no wait to after stage 4 trials finished it's to dangerous yet and doesn't stop you from getting or passing it on I trust him smart guy

I would be surprised if a doctor said this.

Its interesting isn't it that a covid antivaxer just so happens to have a gp who says something like that.

You know the average Phase 4 study is for , on average, 12 -24 months (may be longer in some cases) with thousands of followup cases for large studies.

In a really good review article it stated: "We now have more than a year of data for some people, and an extraordinary 4.18 billion doses of vaccine administered worldwide in which we can look for safety signals.

A phase-three is typically tens of thousands. We already have real-world experience in tens of millions. We have massive experience using the best surveillance system we’ve ever had,” says Robert Booy, senior professorial fellow at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance."

Theres your Phase 4 study.

 

[jadtiger]

Guys, If you are confused or are on the fence surrounding the vaccine go and see your GP. Voice your concerns about it. Then make a decision.

My GP said no wait to after stage 4 trials finished it's to dangerous yet and doesn't stop you from getting or passing it on I trust him smart guy

I am very pleased i dont go to your doctor.I suggest you get a second opinion.

 

[Geo]

No one's fooling me ..I watched I am Legend.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Here's a link to the article on the advice provided by the Director of the RPA Intensive Care Unit.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/sydney/nsw-records-283-new-covid-19-cases-and-another-death/ar-AAN5iOC?ocid=msedgntp

 

[Tiger5150]

Everyone lives happily ever after and does what is right for them

But they don't, they die

Mate the chances of dying from a virus that has a 98% suvival rate is slim

Just so you are aware a 2% chance of dying from something is actually quite high. I don't know if you understand mortality risks.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html
For example in the United States, your average lifetime risk of dying from colorectal cancer is 1.83%. You risk of dying from lung cancer is 5.49%, and of prostate cancer 2.44%.

If COVID was a cancer, it would be in the top 3 killers of Americans in the cancer group.

Primary difference is these are lifetime cancer risks and you can't catch cancer from someone else. If you contract COVID, that 2% mortality is real and immediate - you have a 2% chance of death within the next 1-2 months.

Your interpretation of those numbers is just wrong.

The cancer risks you quote are population basis. The 2% (actually 1-2%) is not a population based risk of death of Covid, it is the Case fatality Rate and therefore 1-2% of the people who catch COVID will die, not 1-2% of the population. The "risk" of dying of Covid is MUCH lower, approximately 0.05% over the last 18months.

 

[earl]

Its interesting isn’t it that a covid antivaxer just so happens to have a gp who says something like that.

I think he is talking about some guy who posts on conspiracy forums and has a username of The Truth Doctor or something like that.

 

[Tiger5150]

Also, in the 0.01% where current theory is proven wrong, science adopts an improved theory.

I was going to add this. Edge cases are sometimes correct. The great thing about science is that edge case then becomes main stream science.

Earl, you have zero idea of how science works. THere is no such thing as "edge cases". Science is a process ....Observation => Hypothesis => Design TEstable predictions => Test as per design => Attempt to falsify => analyse against predictions => falsify or revise hypothesis => Once you have consistent results -=> Publish for peer review => Develop General Theory.

Scientific consensus is not a thing. Science is NOT "the truth" held fast by men in white coats. The world is not flat, the stars dont revolve around us, Thalidomide is not a fantastic drug for morning sickness, MMA Vaccines no longer contain Mercury.