WOULD YOU VACCINATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH SPORTS

[Tiger5150]

Is this now the default COVID thread? Should we merge the two?

 

[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.

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.

Thanks for the compliment. I wasn't debating the scientific principal though, just the level of confidence on the scientific output.

 

[jirskyr]

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.

The data are comparable if you assume that most people will be exposed to COVID in their lifetimes.

I was replying to OP who made a point that 98% survival rate for unvaccinated COVID was slim chance of death. I was pointing out that 2% mortality is actually pretty bad. Any hobby, endeavour, past-time, activity that had a 2% mortality rate would almost certainly be outlawed.

I tried to find an effective comparison amongst disease mortality rates, because most infectious diseases are not novel and are fairly well controlled, so you can't really be comparing COVID, which has existed for ~18 months, with tuberculosis, which has been known thousands of years. Also because bacterial infections currently respond to antibiotics and viruses never have.

And then we would all be aware that the well-controlled serious viral infections are almost entirely controlled by vaccines, because drug-based treatment of viral infections is complicated and inconsistent. So history shows us vaccines are the best solution to viral outbreaks.

So yes those cancer rates are lifetime risks, but the comparison becomes meaningful if you assume that, worst-case, most people will be exposed to COVID in their lifetimes. 201 million people have already confirmed caught COVID globally in 18 months (God knows how many unconfirmed) and I believe there isn't a country without cases. If we thus assume that everyone in the world gets COVID at some point, 2% death rate is horrific - half a million Australians would die, or 140M humans on the whole planet.

 

[Tiger Beach]

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.

I’m not eating Kellogg’s breakfast cereal to be able to watch sports either

The “Cereal science” you outline is interesting though

Do we trust that science?

 

[jirskyr]

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!

I again challenge anyone on this forum: who here has the qualifications and expertise to determine what is an "appropriate" or "acceptable" level of testing of any compound for human consumption? The Health Authorities decide what level of data is required to prove safety/efficacy and permit approval for use in humans.

My mind explodes how a lay person thinks they can assess what is an acceptable marketing application by a drug company. You should see how big a regulatory submission dossier is; you could only imagine how much analysis and documentation Pfizer and AZ had to submit to the Health Authorities for the vaccine approvals.

In fact in one post you suggest that people "may take ivermetcin" but then say vaccines are rushed. Where is the Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) study? Both drugs are assessed by the same criteria, by the same organisations, must meet the same burdens of proof. If Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) could mount a case as strong as the Pfizer vaccine, the FDA and TGA would approve it!!! My mind boggles!!!!

 

[Honkylips]

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

Sorry but Im not buying your story. Didnt happen

 

[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.

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

Or it might not. Why take the risk? I'm not really making projections here, I am just advising people it's our best risk-mitigation strategy to get vaccinated.

COVID is proven serious. To risk that it *may* become less serious in the future is unwise.

 

[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.

Thanks for the compliment. I wasn't debating the scientific principal though, just the level of confidence on the scientific output.

It's a flawed system but it's the best one we've come up with. Like democracy. The day someone invents a better system, I'd be interested to learn about it.

 

[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.

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.

Thanks for the compliment. I wasn't debating the scientific principal though, just the level of confidence on the scientific output.

It's a flawed system but it's the best one we've come up with. Like democracy. The day someone invents a better system, I'd be interested to learn about it.

I agree with you. I'm just trying to be transparent about the flaws.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

People trying to combine smoking and alcohol deaths with covid are way of the mark .Smoking and alcohol are self inflected illnesses some can be rehabilitated and sadly some continue into oblivion.However Covid is a completely different story if it can be controlled by vaccination a lot of needless deaths can be avoided.Covid as we have seen spreads like wildfire and will kill if not controlled and sadly those who choose not to be vaccinated will probably be first to go.Information that is coming out now is the long term after effects of Covid they are saying that those who get covid may recover but more than likely not lead a normal life again

 

[Pascoes_barber]

Great post @jirskyr

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.

Bingo.

'Covid cases' will be a largely irrelevant statistic this time next year.

 

[Guest]

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

Unless your seeing a GP who isn't a real GP I'm going to call you a straight up liar - it fits your MO to a tee.

 

[Tiger Beach]

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

Unless your seeing a GP who isn't a real GP I'm going to call you a straight up liar - it fits your MO to a tee.

How do we have Moderators, who are expected to monitor the forum for personal attacks, as was mentioned the other day, calling members “liars”

Seems inconsistent with the role to me

 

[Guest]

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

Unless your seeing a GP who isn't a real GP I'm going to call you a straight up liar - it fits your MO to a tee.

How do we have Moderators, who are expected to monitor the forum for personal attacks, as was mentioned the other day, calling members “liars”

Seems inconsistent with the role to me

The proof is in the evasiveness of his response to questions posed by other members. And given the seriousness of COVID, you're the last person to be dishing out advice.

 

[earl]

In fact in one post you suggest that people “may take ivermetcin” but then say vaccines are rushed. Where is the Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) study? Both drugs are assessed by the same criteria, by the same organisations, must meet the same burdens of proof. If Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) could mount a case as strong as the Pfizer vaccine, the FDA and TGA would approve it!!! My mind boggles!!!

It astounds me as well. I posted a meta-analysis on ivermetcin recently. I'm fine with ivermetcin but I compare the quality of the testing in relation to ivermetcin and it's effectiveness to the vaccines and its chalk and cheese.

The data from around the world is amazing. This is what gives us such clear predictive ability. If you listen to the press conference today the doctor talked about it like it's mechanical. We get cases. A small percentage of people get really sick. They get into ICU. They are unvaccinated. A small percentage die. This is the effect it has on our health care system.

 

[Tiger Beach]

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

Unless your seeing a GP who isn't a real GP I'm going to call you a straight up liar - it fits your MO to a tee.

How do we have Moderators, who are expected to monitor the forum for personal attacks, as was mentioned the other day, calling members “liars”

Seems inconsistent with the role to me

The proof is in the evasiveness of his response to questions posed by other members. And given the seriousness of COVID, you're the last person to be dishing out advice.

As always there was no advice, I merely raised a question

 

[Demps]

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.

Deal with a few GPs through work.
Approximately 5.

All are very in favour of vaccination.
All 5 refused to do mask exemptions also.

Seems like this would be the baseline.

 

[JD Tiger]

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

Unless your seeing a GP who isn't a real GP I'm going to call you a straight up liar - it fits your MO to a tee.

How do we have Moderators, who are expected to monitor the forum for personal attacks, as was mentioned the other day, calling members “liars”

Seems inconsistent with the role to me

And at least one person downvoted you for saying that. (Not me, you expressed your opinion, fair enough, so I will upvote you just for that.)

They asked the poster to seek a doctor's opinion. The poster then posted advice they said they got from a doctor, (with the advice going against what the others were saying,) so then they dismiss either the doctor's legitimacy or the poster's honesty.

The majority rules, hey.

I also agree though that directly calling someone a liar is disrespectful. Such a post in itself should be deleted. Coming from a moderator as well, well, we're all human (I assume) so mistakes are made.

 

[earl]

I also agree though that directly calling someone a liar is disrespectful. Such a post in itself should be deleted. Coming from a moderator as well, well, we’re all human (I assume) so mistakes are made.

This is wrong. One person is more than likely lying. At the very least he is twisting the truth. The health advice is extremely clear.

If a Doctor stated that there must be some anomaly that we do not know. It's like a doctor killing people via being a poor anesthetist. It's extremely poor advice unless there is something amazing going on.

He continually states ideas that are similar to this. It's has to be statistically impossible for him to tell us all these stories. I get it for a one off but not over and over again.

Then you call him a liar and you are the problem. That is wrong. He isn't telling the truth.

 

[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

Unless your seeing a GP who isn't a real GP I'm going to call you a straight up liar - it fits your MO to a tee.

How do we have Moderators, who are expected to monitor the forum for personal attacks, as was mentioned the other day, calling members “liars”

Seems inconsistent with the role to me

The proof is in the evasiveness of his response to questions posed by other members. And given the seriousness of COVID, you're the last person to be dishing out advice.

As always there was no advice, I merely raised a question

It was a loaded question not an open question, so yeah you were.