WOULD YOU VACCINATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH SPORTS

[Tiger5150]

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.

Exactly, but luckily, Earl has zero idea about the Scientific process and there is no such thing as scientific "mainstream" or consensus and Science being correct 99.9% of the time is a ridiculous concept. Science isnt "right" now or ever, it is a constant process.

 

[balmain boy]

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.

Don't add facts to a discussion with anti-facters Paws...

 

[tigger]

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.

I'm really having difficulty getting my head around all these percentages being tossed about.

Is there a temporal element here that needs to be considered?

In the case of cancer, is it the percentage of population in any given year, or an individual's chance of dying from cancer in the span of a normal lifetime? If the latter, I would think that comparisons are fairly meaningless

Also, in relation to Covid, if we convert the percentage from 'percentage of infected people who die' to 'percentage of population who dies from covid' wouldn't that percentage increase in countries that had high levels of infection? So again, I have difficulty with what purpose such a comparison would serve.

What am I missing here T5150?

 

[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.

I'm really having difficulty getting my head around all these percentages being tossed about.

Is there a temporal element here that needs to be considered?

In the case of cancer, is it the percentage of population in any given year, or an individual's chance of dying from cancer in the span of a normal lifetime? If the latter, I would think that comparisons are fairly meaningless

You are correct that it is the latter and I agree that it is meaningless although Im sure it was not Jirskyr's intention (correct me if wrong @jirskyr ). The Cancer percentages are both total population and over a lifetime whereas the 2% with Covid is a subset (people infected with Covid) and over a narrow timeperiod (28 days from infection). The data are not comparable.

Also, in relation to Covid, if we convert the percentage from 'percentage of infected people who die' to 'percentage of population who dies from covid' wouldn't that percentage increase in countries that had high levels of infection? So again, I have difficulty with what purpose such a comparison would serve.

Correct again. Again talking about all different numbers but Case Fatalities Rates vary from around 0.5% to 4% depending on where you catch it and the access to what health system you have access to. The population mortaility rates would similarly vary and also of course vary over time. I simply took global deaths 4.3M/7.8B global population which give a population mortality of around 0.05% over 18 months (also a pretty useless stat).

 

[tigger]

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.

I'm really having difficulty getting my head around all these percentages being tossed about.

Is there a temporal element here that needs to be considered?

In the case of cancer, is it the percentage of population in any given year, or an individual's chance of dying from cancer in the span of a normal lifetime? If the latter, I would think that comparisons are fairly meaningless

You are correct that it is the latter and I agree that it is meaningless although Im sure it was not Jirskyr's intention (correct me if wrong @jirskyr ). The Cancer percentages are both total population and over a lifetime whereas the 2% with Covid is a subset (people infected with Covid) and over a narrow timeperiod (28 days from infection). The data are not comparable.

Also, in relation to Covid, if we convert the percentage from 'percentage of infected people who die' to 'percentage of population who dies from covid' wouldn't that percentage increase in countries that had high levels of infection? So again, I have difficulty with what purpose such a comparison would serve.

Correct again. Again talking about all different numbers but Case Fatalities Rates vary from around 0.5% to 4% depending on where you catch it and the access to what health system you have access to. The population mortaility rates would similarly vary and also of course vary over time. I simply took global deaths 4.3M/7.8B global population which give a population mortality of around 0.05% over 18 months (also a pretty useless stat).

Got it. Thanks for that.

 

[voice_of_reason]

I will never understand the belief that the vaccine is bad and it's some sort of conspiracy by big pharma.

I wonder how many anti-vaccers are happy to eat the various breakfast cereals which get 5 star health ratings - the tests for which are laughably sponsored by companies like Kellogs?

My guess is you're far more likely to die from the sugar, flavourings and preservatives in the cereal than from what's in the vaccine.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

And to watch sports, just having a high take up of vaccination in NSW will not persuade other Premiers to open borders. Gladys will have to get back to zero by getting tougher in the South West and West. That is the only way to open borders to allow NSW residents to travel interstate.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

I will never understand the belief that the vaccine is bad and it's some sort of conspiracy by big pharma.

I wonder how many anti-vaccers are happy to eat the various breakfast cereals which get 5 star health ratings - the tests for which are laughably sponsored by companies like Kellogs?

My guess is you're far more likely to die from the sugar, flavourings and preservatives in the cereal than from what's in the vaccine.

Sadly, too many people oversimplify this hysterical tragedy!
The vaccines are properly tested, and proven safe and effective by the FDA for instance. The current COVID injections cannot be considered vaccines, as they did not go through the complete FDA processes, they were rushed through.
Many people take proper vaccines (e;g, polio, flu etc), and reject to receive these experimental injections. They wait for the proper vaccine is developed. Until then, they may take the hcq or Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective), or decide to take nothing, Or simply they are not “anti vaxxers”, they simply they reject improperly tested treatment.
As for the real anti-vaxxers, they have full right to remain so,
Everyone is responsible for their own body, not politicians, “medical advisors” read paid for comment mercenaries or online I Know better, self appointed do-gooders!

 

[Tiger5150]

I will never understand the belief that the vaccine is bad and it's some sort of conspiracy by big pharma.

That is a MASSIVE question and i dont pretend to know the complete answer, but for mine, I think it all comes down to the loss of truth telling institutions. The mainstream media (particularly in the US but also here) has stopped being a source of published facts and now are basically propagandists for their particular "team". As a result IMO the wider public no longer trusts these sources to tell the truth.

This distrust is exacerbated by the fact that (again particularly in the US) the scientific/medical information sources....CDC, WHO etc have flat out lied repeatedly and made EXTREMELY dodgy statements or decisions. Examples include:
- Dr Fauci stating that people should NOT wear masks and then subsequently admitting that he only said that so there would be enough masks for front line workers.
- Dr Fauci being responsible by arguing the case in the US Senate to overturn the ban on "gain of Function" research into coronavirus,
-Dr Fauci (through the NHI and Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance) funding gain of function research into gain of function research,
- The WHO sending Peter Daszak to investigate the "Lab Leak Hypothesis". Peter Daszak Eco Health Alliance has been the biggest investor in the Wuhan Lab other than the CCP.

Repeated lies and mistruths from the sources that we should be relying on for factual information sow the seeds of mistrust and generally if they will lie about this, then how do we know they are telling the truth about that.

Couple this loss of truth telling institutions with the fact that this is a novel situation that makes no sense, people start to make their own assumptions and go to even less valuable sources that are of course usually wrong.

IMO its a perfect storm of a corrupt media, spilling tnto corrupt government/international bodies and then this virus comes along.

 

[innsaneink]

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

What's his name and where does he practise?

 

[jirskyr]

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%.

Bingo. Some experts estimate nearly everyone will be exposed to COVID in their lifetime, and we'll have better projections over the next few years.

 

[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?

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

Bingo. Some experts estimate nearly everyone will be exposed to COVID in their lifetime, and we'll have better projections over the next few years.

Doesn't answer my question though. The probability of dying from Covid might fall too.

 

[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).

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.

Put that big brain of yours to the COVID discussion. I don't disagree with you here but also I don't think we need to debate what the scientific principle is.

 

[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

What's his name and where does he practise?

He is from Pakistan and in his 30's

 

[JD Tiger]

I will never understand the belief that the vaccine is bad and it's some sort of conspiracy by big pharma.


That is a MASSIVE question and i dont pretend to know the complete answer, but for mine, I think it all comes down to the loss of truth telling institutions. The mainstream media (particularly in the US but also here) has stopped being a source of published facts and now are basically propagandists for their particular "team". **As a result IMO the wider public no longer trusts these sources to tell the truth**.

This distrust is exacerbated by the fact that (again particularly in the US) the scientific/medical information sources....CDC, WHO etc have flat out lied repeatedly and made EXTREMELY dodgy statements or decisions. Examples include:
- Dr Fauci stating that people should NOT wear masks and then subsequently admitting that he only said that so there would be enough masks for front line workers.
- Dr Fauci being responsible by arguing the case in the US Senate to overturn the ban on "gain of Function" research into coronavirus,
-Dr Fauci (through the NHI and Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance) funding gain of function research into gain of function research,
- The WHO sending Peter Daszak to investigate the "Lab Leak Hypothesis". Peter Daszak Eco Health Alliance has been the biggest investor in the Wuhan Lab other than the CCP.

Repeated lies and mistruths from the sources that we should be relying on for factual information sow the seeds of mistrust and generally if they will lie about this, then how do we know they are telling the truth about that.

Couple this loss of truth telling institutions with the fact that this is a novel situation that makes no sense, people start to make their own assumptions and go to even less valuable sources that are of course usually wrong.

IMO its a perfect storm of a corrupt media, spilling tnto corrupt government/international bodies and then this virus comes along.

Hit the nail on the head there mate, I reckon. I'm certainly not an anti-vaxxer, had my first covid vaccine earlier today in fact, but I think it comes down to their agenda as well.

I affirm that not only can the governments and health orgs not be trusted to tell the truth, but that telling the truth is not even their goal/agenda. Their goal/agenda is to encourage a course of action, and they will deadset lie or reword whatever message they have towards that goal.

That all being said, yes I think it's an acceptable result if they do decide you can only attend a sports event if you have had a vaccination. I don't think it's fair to the individual, but its needed for society as a whole, and hopefully that's their main concern.

 

[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

What's his name and where does he practise?

Also a friend lives in St Mary's and his GP said also the same think but mentioned indemnity

 

[mike]

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

What's his name and where does he practise?

He is from Pakistan and in his 30's

He didn’t ask his ethnicity or age he asked his name and where does he practice.

 

[tig_prmz]

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

Hmm as much as I agree with freedom of speech, I don't agree with GPs advicing against known scientific evidence and government guidelines.

 

[jirskyr]

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

Interesting feedback. Does your doctor in fact mean "Phase IV" trials and does he know what those are?

Phase IV trails are conducted post-marketing, i.e. after the drug is already approved and on the market. Usually they are conducted to expand the approval for the drug, e.g. add an indication or a population group (kids, pregnancy etc.). Most safety reporting for marketed drugs in Australia comes via doctor and pharmacist reporting, so-called "blue card" reporting.

Also, one more time for the dummies, nobody said the current vaccines stop you getting COVID, or passing it on. They do reduce your risk of both, and if you get it, they very significantly reduce your risk of illness and death. So if you want to focus on the catch/pass part of immunity (maybe you can't switch off your rugby league brain) rather than the hospitalisation/death part, so be it.

 

[jirskyr]

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."

I know Robert Booy, I did a flu vaccine study with him at the Kids Hospital at Westmead, about 10 years ago. Smart dude.