Corona virus, Port and the AFL. Part 4.

[GoTheMightyCrows]

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.

Carn, just answer whatever the question is - it can't be that hard instead of constantly ducking and dodging.

 

[pastmyprimus]

Carn, just answer whatever the question is - it can't be that hard instead of constantly ducking and dodging.

Paggagallo gave the answer in an earlier post. Not hard to look that up

 

[EskimoPAFC]

My brain saw “truffle haloumi” and then prayed such a thing exists.

I keep reading Waluigi

 

[tribey]

Carn, just answer whatever the question is - it can't be that hard instead of constantly ducking and dodging.

Which one? wallumi is currently executing one of the most convoluted gish gallops of all-time.

 

[wallumi]

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And yes you are aware of withdrawn studies.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.

Is the meta study I just posted withdrawn or valid?
If it is valid does it effectively replace the one on the Spartacus list that you claim is withdrawn?
If not, why not?
Does the expert witness statement I just posted provide substance to the Ivermectin issue?
If not, why not?

You are not going to go through every listed reference because it's too onerous.
In lieu of that due research you claim the right to dispel his statement, quite explicitly on the basis of your imagined perception of his character.
If he had provided no references, which you did initially and incorrectly accuse him of, you would be dismissing him on that count. If he floats he's guilty, if he sinks and drowns he still guilty?
Why do you make out to be rational? Because it works with most of the people you meet who also think that they think?

WTF does Craig Kelly have to do with anything?
If he takes a shit every day does that compel you to constipate yourself?

 

[Lagooner]

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?

Influenza kills between 300K-600K people globally in any given year, circulating freely throughout the population without any restrictions in place.

Covid killed approx 3 million people globally in its first year, WITH restrictions. There would’ve been many more deaths with no restrictions in place. As in, millions more.

Take this, Google virus reproduction numbers and you’ll pretty quickly figure out 1. why the coronavirus is a much more serious problem than the flu and 2. why the vaccine regime is more stringent i.e. it’s proportional to the problem.

If this doesn’t sink in, well, there’s not much else I can really do for you within the limits of my patience.

 

[tribey]

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.

Citing a half-arsed meta-analysis of half-arsed (and since debunked) studies was enough for me.

I can’t believe a South African doctor who hasn’t practised medicine since 2013 and is championing an Egyptian study full of holes, isn’t being taken seriously!

 

[Del165198]

WTF does Craig Kelly have to do with anything?
If he takes a sh*t every day does that compel you to constipate yourself?

Because maybe you should have a look at the bold intellectuals you're tossing your hat in the ring with. Craig Kelly, Clive Palmer, Donald Trump, Joe Rogan.

 

[bomberclifford]

Paggagallo gave the answer in an earlier post. Not hard to look that up

“dO yoUr ReSEarCh” doesn’t cut both ways, it seems.

 

[OneGreatClub]

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!

I don’t know how accurate the data she is referring to is.
I see no reason why ivermectin is not being promoted if it actually is effective.

Anecdotes and flawed or tiny studies don’t really cut it.
And hospitals are already using a cocktail of generic drugs to treat covid19 so science is not against doing such a thing, so where is your conspiracy?
Perhaps the ivermectin promoters have done themselvesva disservice by trying to pawn off fraudulent studies but at least there are now some proper studies, randomised controlled, in the pipework.
Listen to this. I came upon it a few weeks back. Review and critique of some ivermectin papers. Illuminating and pretty damning really.

 

[pastmyprimus]

Influenza kills between 300K-600K people globally in any given year, circulating freely throughout the population without any restrictions in place.

Covid killed approx 3 million people globally in its first year, WITH restrictions. There would’ve been many more deaths with no restrictions in place. As in, millions more.

Take this, Google virus reproduction numbers and you’ll pretty quickly figure out 1. why the coronavirus is a much more serious problem than the flu and 2. why the vaccine regime is more stringent i.e. it’s proportional to the problem.

If this doesn’t sink in, well, there’s not much else I can really do for you within the limits of my patience.

I think the reproduction number is more important than the CFR in discussions comparing covid and influenza. R0 for influenza is just over one while R0 for the delta is around 6. Delta spreads exponentially if left unchecked. The flu is nowhere near as contagious. Even if the CRF rates are the same you end up with an order of magnitude more covid deaths in unvaccinated populations because of the exponential spread. But we know covid is more deadly than the flu which makes covid even a bigger killer.

 

[bomberclifford]

Thought this needed another airing just to lighten the mood.

 

[Marat]

Because maybe you should have a look at the bold intellectuals you're tossing your hat in the ring with. Craig Kelly, Clive Palmer, Donald Trump, Joe Rogan.

There is an interesting study that suggests the correlation between education (as a proxy for intelligence) and vaccine skepticism is a U shaped curve - the well educated are generally very pro vaccine (witness Canberra generally and the health bureaucrats and other earnest bores in this thread) whereas the outliers in both directions - the poorly educated and those with phd’s - tend to be the most skeptical. I suggest that Wallumi and Craig Kelly would be sitting at opposite ends of the U curve

 

[bomberclifford]

There is an interesting study that suggests the correlation between education (as a proxy for intelligence) and vaccine skepticism is a U shaped curve - the well educated are generally very pro vaccine (witness Canberra generally and the health bureaucrats and other earnest bores in this thread) whereas the outliers in both directions - the poorly educated and those with phd’s - tend to be the most skeptical. I suggest that Wallumi and Craig Kelly would be sitting at opposite ends of the U curve

There is no way that Craig Kelly has a PhD.

 

[Del165198]

There is an interesting study that suggests the correlation between education (as a proxy for intelligence) and vaccine skepticism is a U shaped curve - the well educated are generally very pro vaccine (witness Canberra generally and the health bureaucrats and other earnest bores in this thread) whereas the outliers in both directions - the poorly educated and those with phd’s - tend to be the most skeptical. I suggest that Wallumi and Craig Kelly would be sitting at opposite ends of the U curve

Let's see this study

 

[pastmyprimus]

COVID now 6th-leading cause of death in kids 5-11, SC Health Dept. says

Covid's the sixth leading cause of deaths for kids 5-11 in the US.

Assistant State Epidemiologist Dr. Jane Kelly says the delta variant hit young people very hard, harder than the original strain.

For children who have already had COVID-19 and have recovered, Kelly said is still recommended that they get vaccinated.

“The level of natural immunity after infection varies considerably and is lower in people who had mild disease or who were asymptomatic compared to those who had experienced severe disease,” she said.

Studies in the United States and in other countries have shown a person with a prior infection can cut their risk of re-infection in half by getting vaccinated, she said

COVID now 6th-leading cause of death in kids 5-11, SC Health Dept. says (msn.com)

 

[wallumi]

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.

My denigrating comments have all been reciprocal. You probably don't notice the default aggression and insult that is directed at outset to 'the other' in this whole psychodrama. I'm not especially proud of insulting rejoinders, but then I'm not a proud person.

Let's take this efficacy/mandate thing down to prime factors.

Best available study data demonstrates the following:
The vaccine provides short term protection against infection, transmission and disease severity.
Breakthrough infection and transmissibility after about 6 months is roughly equivalent to the unvaccinated.
Double vaccination is not sufficient. A third is needed.
Third and subsequent shots may be similarly transient. They may even become less durable.
Infection immunity last longer across all key factors than does vaccination immunity.

These findings uphold the following:
An unvaccinated person is only a risk to themselves, to other who choose to not vaccinate, and to jabbers who do not maintain the necessary vaccination schedule.
Given the uncertainties surrounding vaccination longevity, jabbers can pose infection risk to others prior to 're-jabbing'.
Risk from the unvaccinated only realistically falls upon those who might, despite choice, be unable to be vaccinated.
It is easy to separate these at-risk groups from the unvaccinated.
It is not so easy to separate them from the ineffectively vaccinated, especially if transmission capacity co-exists with symptom suppression (I'm alright Jack).
This large under-jabbed cohort will proceed into the future as a shapeshifting miasma. This gives rise to the salient observation, 'over time, who will protect the vaccinated from each other?' Additional to that, who will protect the unvaccinated from the ineffectively vaccinated?

Mandating vaccines on this basis of demonstrable fact and experience is unhinged madness by any sensible benchmark that can be nominated.

Tell me where and how these summary points are wrong. Don't simply carry on with a glib delivery of ad hominem deflection.

 

[OneGreatClub]

There is an interesting study that suggests the correlation between education (as a proxy for intelligence) and vaccine skepticism is a U shaped curve - the well educated are generally very pro vaccine (witness Canberra generally and the health bureaucrats and other earnest bores in this thread) whereas the outliers in both directions - the poorly educated and those with phd’s - tend to be the most skeptical. I suggest that Wallumi and Craig Kelly would be sitting at opposite ends of the U curve

It’s a very lopsided curve from what I have seen

 

[GoTheMightyCrows]

COVID now 6th-leading cause of death in kids 5-11, SC Health Dept. says

Covid's the sixth leading cause of deaths for kids 5-11 in the US.

Assistant State Epidemiologist Dr. Jane Kelly says the delta variant hit young people very hard, harder than the original strain.

For children who have already had COVID-19 and have recovered, Kelly said is still recommended that they get vaccinated.

“The level of natural immunity after infection varies considerably and is lower in people who had mild disease or who were asymptomatic compared to those who had experienced severe disease,” she said.

Studies in the United States and in other countries have shown a person with a prior infection can cut their risk of re-infection in half by getting vaccinated, she said

COVID now 6th-leading cause of death in kids 5-11, SC Health Dept. says (msn.com)

Care to tell us what the top 5 causes are and the actual numbers for each category, interesting snippit but I'm not sure that it helps or hinders your case.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

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

 

[Marat]

Let's see this study

I cant get the link to the original paper but this is a report on it

The most vaccine-hesitant group of all? PhDs - The Post

There has been much debate over how to get the unvaccinated to get their jabs — shame them, bribe them persuade them, or treat them as victims of mis- and disinformation campaigns — but who, exactly, are these people? Most of the coverage would have you believe that the surge in cases is...

unherd.com

 

[OneGreatClub]

I cant get the link to the original paper but this is a report on it

The most vaccine-hesitant group of all? PhDs - The Post

There has been much debate over how to get the unvaccinated to get their jabs — shame them, bribe them persuade them, or treat them as victims of mis- and disinformation campaigns — but who, exactly, are these people? Most of the coverage would have you believe that the surge in cases is...

unherd.com

Mmm, I am married to a PhD and have several friends with doctorates. All are vaccinated. Small sample of course.

 

[pastmyprimus]

Care to tell us what the top 5 causes are and the actual numbers for each category, interesting snippit but I'm not sure that it helps or hinders your case.

Well there is a view that kids are safe from covid. This helps to debunk that view. An important message to get out and that was one of the aims of the quoted epidemiologist. The article didn't quote the top 5 causes. That doesn't change the important message

 

[wallumi]

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.

You cite an online 'factcheck' article dated 6/03/21. It responds to a youtube video presentation by a single author.

I linked to a published multi-author medical paper dated August 2021. It has multiple citations in other publications and has no professional disputation of its content at this point.

Refer to this response by the authors to a journal criticism of it by an author separate to the one you cite. It addresses the alleged withdrawal of the Elgazzar paper:

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines. American Journal of Therapeutics, 28, e434–e460, July 2021 - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You may well be victim/perp of the very same malaise you allege.

 

[wallumi]

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.

FFS stop prosecuting via innuendo and spit your gripe out.