Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 4.

[pastmyprimus]

It's not clear what you are saying here.

You think that because you are thinking that. Not because it is reasonable.

R = Rate.
So how does that R number compare?
With what?

Pappagallo has made a very good point. By the way R <> rate.

 

[edgie]

Well I just did so eat my bum

I would but I didn't have a flu shot so you might not be a fan intimate conduct with me

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[Lagooner]

You think that because you are thinking that. Not because it is reasonable.

R = Rate.
So how does that R number compare?
With what?

No.

R = Reproduction.

Have fun.

 

[edgie]

I'm eagerly awaiting the PB vs GETWHATYOUDESERVE shitfight

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[GoTheMightyCrows]

Well I just did so eat my bum

Well that answers that question

 

[OneGreatClub]

Liam Jones

19

Liam Jones

Age

34

Ht

199cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.4

2star

K

6.5

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

4.3

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

134.5

2star

D

7.6

2star

K

6.1

3star

HB

1.4

1star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.4

2star

MG

116.3

2star

D

9.4

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

2.0

2star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.2

4star

from Carlton put on inactive list due to not agreeing to be vaccinated.

 

[wallumi]

Pappagallo has made a very good point. By the way R <> rate.

From - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8250317/

• Global infection fatality rate is approximately 0.15% with 1.5‐2.0 billion infections as of February 2021.

infection fatality rate = IFR

WTF are you lot on about that is of any functional relevance to the practical elements of the discussion?

 

[pastmyprimus]

From - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8250317/

• Global infection fatality rate is approximately 0.15% with 1.5‐2.0 billion infections as of February 2021.

infection fatality rate = IFR

WTF are you lot on about that is of any functional relevance to the practical elements of the discussion?

Yes I know what an IFR is. Pappagallo's point still not sinking in.

 

[G3TWOTYAD3S3RV]

You might not grow up

Fingers crossed


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[wallumi]

However I am sure you are aware that just because a research paper is published somewhere does not make its findings indisputable, it could be flawed.
For example the large meta analysis on ivermectin was withdrawn eventually when found to be fraudulent and sloppy science.

Also you are just guessing as to who Spartacus is. Let is be honest he could be a Russian troll being paid to create confusion and dissent for for all we know ( ok just kidding)

I am indeed aware of that. It is why the Oxford Imperial College paper projecting Covid19 impacts is in the dustbin, and why any original publications on vaccine efficacy are fishwrap. Yet some flawed papers fall silently away and others make headlines, and vice versa re publicity and genuine merit. Go figure.

Where is the confirming evidence that this paper has been withdrawn?

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PMC

Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

WTF is the issue with who he is? Why not focus on what he has documented?
I don't really care if he's Mr Ed if what he's collated is essentially and usefully correct.

 

[wallumi]

Yes I know what an IFR is. Pappagallo's point still not sinking in.

Please indulge me . Explain it.

 

[G3TWOTYAD3S3RV]

I'm eagerly awaiting the PB vs GETWHATYOUDESERVE shitfight

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

NO DEAL X


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Del165198]

I would but I didn't have a flu shot so you might not be a fan intimate conduct with me

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

I haven't had a flu shot either big boy

 

[Del165198]

I am indeed aware of that. It is why the Oxford Imperial College paper projecting Covid19 impacts is in the dustbin, and why any original publications on vaccine efficacy are fishwrap. Yet some flawed papers fall silently away and others make headlines, and vice versa re publicity and genuine merit. Go figure.

Where is the confirming evidence that this paper has been withdrawn?

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PMC

Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

WTF is the issue with who he is? Why not focus on what he has documented?
I don't really care if he's Mr Ed if what he's collated is essentially and usefully correct.

Wouldn't be surprised to hear Mr Ed is a big fan of Ivermectin tbh

 

[pastmyprimus]

Please indulge me . Explain it.

I thought it was reasonably self-evident.

 

[edgie]

I haven't had a flu shot either big boy

Two rumps, medium rare thanks.

 

[edgie]

I haven't had a flu shot either big boy

Sorry I meant NO DEAL X

 

[PowerBaz]

Yikes not the casual read I thought whilst I eating my rice, is rice OK? Can someone send me a report, some data?

 

[wallumi]

However I am sure you are aware that just because a research paper is published somewhere does not make its findings indisputable, it could be flawed.
For example the large meta analysis on ivermectin was withdrawn eventually when found to be fraudulent and sloppy science.

Also you are just guessing as to who Spartacus is. Let is be honest he could be a Russian troll being paid to create confusion and dissent for for all we know ( ok just kidding)

Also check this out:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/

It validates the reputation of the researcher, her professional view of Ivermectin's merit as a Cover treatment, and the insularity of 'authority' to the real science of new and significant facts and opportunities. Yet we wonder why so many people died and hold doggedly fast to a vaccine-led recovery. FFS!

 

[wallumi]

Yikes not the casual read I thought whilst I eating my rice, is rice OK? Can someone send me a report, some data?

You need to eat it straight from the paddy with a garnish of attached weeds and small fish.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I am indeed aware of that. It is why the Oxford Imperial College paper projecting Covid19 impacts is in the dustbin, and why any original publications on vaccine efficacy are fishwrap. Yet some flawed papers fall silently away and others make headlines, and vice versa re publicity and genuine merit. Go figure.

Where is the confirming evidence that this paper has been withdrawn?

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines - PMC

Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials. We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

WTF is the issue with who he is? Why not focus on what he has documented?
I don't really care if he's Mr Ed if what he's collated is essentially and usefully correct.

I care who he is.
And yes you are aware of withdrawn studies.
And I am not going through his list one by one, he has made it onerous on purpose.
And you are on the ivermectin bandwagon in the Craig Kelly vein. It all goes together, conspiratorial thinking, anti vax, ivermectin belief, all spouting the same stuff.
Spartacus is probably a gym owner, they are really into this stuff.

 

[bomberclifford]

To go back to the crux of the matter that you seem to have missed, Covid mandates are far wider and more restrictive than the relatively minimal ones related to Flu shots. The current extent of the one does not justify the mush larger mandate of the other. It is not valid logic to say it does.

They are mandates nonetheless. (ie we already live in a world where vaccinations are mandated to be employed in certain roles or to travel to certain places.) It is a mechanism we already use to ensure the safety of those who are vulnerable in our community.

You trying to flip that to being a 'justification' of the size and reach of the covid mandates is just deflection.

You trying to claim the logical high ground is also a weird flex considering not a lot of what you are posting is based on logic. It's a bunch of random thought bubbles that you've tried (unsuccessfully) to weave into a cohesive argument that the world's collective governments have decided they want to experiment on us with a vaccine for a virus that, in your mind, is virtually harmless.

It's clear that you're antivax. Not just covid.

It's clear that you've taken a contrarian position and have sought information to back that up, which has you convinced that there's a conspiracy to have us all vaxxed, perpetually, for some reason that you can't quite explain.

When challenged on it, you attempt to denigrate people's intelligence.

You're either an idiot or a troll.
My guess is the latter.

 

[wallumi]

I thought it was reasonably self-evident.

You can be a smug dick or you can engage in productive discussion. My bet is that you're revelling in some aspect of practically irrelevant geek trivia. The anticipation of this simmering bombshell will far outweigh its actual import.

 

[tribey]

Also check this out:

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/

It validates the reputation of the researcher, her professional view of Ivermectin's merit as a Cover treatment, and the insularity of 'authority' to the real science of new and significant facts and opportunities. Yet we wonder why so many people died and hold doggedly fast to a vaccine-led recovery. FFS!

Ivermectin isn’t a highly effective drug for treating COVID-19 - Science Feedback

Scientific evidence doesn’t support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. Clinical trials must be designed and executed appropriately to show the efficacy and safety of a given drug for treating a particular disease. Clinical trials that show beneficial effects of using ivermectin...

healthfeedback.org

“However, there are several issues with Lawrie’s meta-analysis. It wasn’t peer-reviewed, unlike published studies in scientific journals, and several of the studies used by the FLCCC and included in Lawrie’s review have also not been peer-reviewed[3-5].

The lack of peer review means that scientists with relevant expertise, such as epidemiologists and biostatisticians, haven’t independently reviewed the research. Peer review is an important step in the scientific publishing process, as it helps authors identify and correct substantial errors or shortcomings in their studies. It can also help to determine the quality of a given study. For example, some publications may contain very strong scientific evidence and novel discoveries, while others may have only weak research to back up their hypotheses. Overall, peer review can help prevent the spread of exaggerated or unsupported scientific claims.

Both Lawrie and the FLCCC cited three ongoing clinical trials testing the effects of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that produced inconclusive results, as well as a report by Juan Chamie, a data analyst with no training in biology or medicine. Overall, presenting these studies and clinical trials as evidence of ivermectin’s effectiveness as a treatment for COVID-19 without acknowledging their limitations is inaccurate and misleading.

Notably, a preprint study by Elgazzar et al., used in Lawrie’s meta-analysis, was withdrawn in July 2021 after numerous issues with the study were detected. Among these issues were plagiarism, potential data fabrication, and data that was inconsistent with the study’s protocol. These issues were uncovered by student Jack Lawrence, who analyzed the preprint for a class assignment.”

Tess Lawrie = Confirmation bias 101.

 

[pastmyprimus]

You can be a smug dick or you can engage in productive discussion. My bet is that you're revelling in some aspect of practically irrelevant geek trivia. The anticipation of this simmering bombshell will far outweigh its actual import.

It's not geek trivia. The complete opposite in fact. The fact you don't have an understanding of something quite fundamental to covid says a lot about your credibility.