- Banned
- #1,451
Hmmm….it doesn’t take 3 weeks to review and hand over a legal case file.
2022 Victorian State Election-November 26
- Thread starter Jascave
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Science is usually done by scientists and then reviewed by other scientists...
morningbrown
Club Legend
- Mar 9, 2021
- 1,910
- 4,164
- AFL Club
- Carlton
The Sun continuing to run with the Cath Andrews and falling down the stairs stories really shows how desperate they are. It's pathetic.
Pakenhamsaint
Premium Platinum
- Jan 5, 2011
- 46,254
- 37,715
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
The Libs have really jumped the shark.
They're shot. Too busy chasing the cooker vote.
They're shot. Too busy chasing the cooker vote.
Cooked.
I presume this now means they'll be preferencing Greens ahead of Labor in Richmond, Northcote etc? Interesting
- Banned
- #1,457
Yes. We’ve seen that.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Go ahead, post your link. I'm pretty sure I will be able to find the holes in it.
They've gone full complete foiler.
Running ads about how they marched in the streets over lockdowns and are anti-mandats then Guy tries to squirm out of it unconvincingly at pressers.
www.theguardian.com
Running ads about how they marched in the streets over lockdowns and are anti-mandats then Guy tries to squirm out of it unconvincingly at pressers.
Matthew Guy defends election ad that criticises vaccine mandates and refers to Daniel Andrews as a ‘prick’
Victorian Liberal leader says ad only repeats the language used by the construction union
There is no link he can post.
The lockdowns were part of a suite of policies that inverted excess mortality in both Victoria and Australia.
- Banned
- #1,461
Which link?
- Thread starter
- #1,463
Would be interesting to see the reaction in the Herald Sun newsroom (as well as 3AW and Sky News Australia) if Daniel Andrews wins this year's state election.
to think this would be based on party research - makes you wonder what their own internal polling is telling them
[edit] worth remembering, party research led them down the path of the safe schools and african gang attack lines in the lead up to 2018 ..... maybe the libs party recruitment isnt attracting the best and brightest
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,465
I think (like me) they expect him to. He shouldn’t though. He should quit.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
The one claiming lockdown hurt more than benefit (I want to look at the assumptions made by the writers my suspicion is they think government needed to have psychic knowledge about risk level of covid when initial reports were SARS like and the hospital CFR for the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong was higher than 10%, so the initial Wuhan 10% was thought to be true.
SARS | Basics Factsheet | CDC
Fact sheet covering basic information on SARS, CDC Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome information
Link shows that CDC has whole of population case fatality for SARS 2003 at about 9%
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
I know I am lying to them for shits and giggles apart from truth re hospital service issues.
Pakenhamsaint
Premium Platinum
- Jan 5, 2011
- 46,254
- 37,715
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
How bad is thier research?
- Banned
- #1,469
Ah right. I don’t know. I read a report of it not the paper itself. The report seemed consistent with what was reported to be the government strategy pre pandemic for what to do and what not to do in such circumstances.The one claiming lockdown hurt more than benefit (I want to look at the assumptions made by the writers my suspicion is they think government needed to have psychic knowledge about risk level of covid when initial reports were SARS like and the hospital CFR for the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong was higher than 10%, so the initial Wuhan 10% was thought to be true.
SARS | Basics Factsheet | CDC
Fact sheet covering basic information on SARS, CDC Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome informationwww.cdc.gov
Link shows that CDC has whole of population case fatality for SARS 2003 at about 9%
But I can’t give you specifics. I’m commenting on this as an observer outside. Not as one claiming in depth knowledge.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
So I will then say such report has no weight then in this discussion.
- Banned
- #1,471
Well you can’t quite say that. You haven’t read it. I haven’t read it. So we are but 2 blokes at a pub or coffee shop shooting the s**t.
By that standard, most scientific reports, approvingly referenced by knowledgeable scientists on here, would also be irrelevant.
They're chasing the cooker vote now? That is absolutely comical!
They may as well start campaigning on anti-abortion and legalising machine guns and RPGs next.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Yep which would mean that report isn't "science".
The report doesn't actually do any counterfactual analysis which would be necessary to evaluate whether anything 'caused more harm than good'.The one claiming lockdown hurt more than benefit (I want to look at the assumptions made by the writers my suspicion is they think government needed to have psychic knowledge about risk level of covid when initial reports were SARS like and the hospital CFR for the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong was higher than 10%, so the initial Wuhan 10% was thought to be true.
SARS | Basics Factsheet | CDC
Fact sheet covering basic information on SARS, CDC Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome information
Link shows that CDC has whole of population case fatality for SARS 2003 at about 9%
Also, whilst lower level, one of the key references in the lockdown section is also to this website: Home - Collateral Global which appears to be a lobbying website dedicated to how bad lockdowns are, which is pretty awful form for a 'scientific report'. Might as well ask the IPA whether we should tax Gina Rinehart.
Not sure you are being serious with us.
