Covid 19 (OPEN DISCUSSION)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forward Press said:
As if it wasn't confirmed already, a certain poster in this thread has gone off the deep end in his desperation to find hypocrisy.

People complain about not being able to see your interstate parents - do you know who else never sought an exemption to visit his parents in NSW? I'll give you a hint - his name rhymes with Hitler, Stalin and Mao (apparently).
Click to expand...

That just proves he’s a heartless monster who doesn’t care about his own parents.

(Probably)
 
Forward Press said:
As if it wasn't confirmed already, a certain poster in this thread has gone off the deep end in his desperation to find hypocrisy.

People complain about not being able to see your interstate parents - do you know who else never sought an exemption to visit his parents in NSW? I'll give you a hint - his name rhymes with Hitler, Stalin and Mao (apparently).
Click to expand...

Who??? Lets go Bragowan….
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ilkka Sinisalo said:
edition.cnn.com

FDA considers limiting authorization of certain monoclonal antibody treatments

Federal regulators are considering limiting the authorization of certain monoclonal antibody treatments that have not proved effective against the Omicron variant of the coronavirus, a source familiar with the decision-making told CNN.
edition.cnn.com edition.cnn.com



If anyone is wondering where this monoclonal antibodies stuff is coming from, a handful of right-wing governors (most prominently Ron DeSantis of Florida and Greg Abbott of Texas) who actively fought against social restrictions, masks, lockdowns, and any sort of vaccine mandates, have heavily pushed monoclonal antibody treatments (which conveniently are paid for by the federal government, and not their states). These may be effective for people with minor or moderate symptoms; i.e., they are less likely to see those symptoms grow into symptoms that would require hospitalisation. The problems with this treatment: First, a lot (probably most) of these people would get better on their own, so the antibody course would be unnecessary for them. And second, these cost a lot of money. One round of monoclonal antibodies, depending on the manufacturer, cost anywhere from $1250 to $10,000 USD. These were often used to treat unvaccinated people with minor or moderate symptoms, so instead of these people getting a vaccine that costs the government around $20 and is much more effective at preventing hospitalisation than monoclonal antibodies, anti-vaxxers were coming down with mild Covid cases and then getting thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars worth of treatment courtesy of the federal government.

Extrapolating out the math here, Victoria yesterday had approximately 250,000 active positive cases of Covid. Even assuming only one round of monoclonal antibodies and assuming a fairly low price per dose of $2000 (AUD), to treat each of these people with one round of monoclonal antibodies would cost the government $500 million dollars. That is just about two weeks worth of positive cases. So needless to say, widespread use of these antibodies is not realistic, even if one were to ignore that it seems to be ineffective against Omicron (which is now the dominant variant in Australia).
Click to expand...

This is weirdly political, they are used all over the world who give an f what is happening in the US. Does not apply here.


1. We are almost 95% vaccinated, winging about unvaccinated republicans in Florida and what is or isn't an incentive to get people vaccinated is irrelevant. But I do like the whole "we should deny everyone medicine in case someone thinks theres an insurance policy and they don't have to have the vaccine" which is exactly the point I was making. Denial of medical intervention on people on a global scale in order to increase vaccine take up, about as unethical a thing as is imaginable for public health officials. But thats done now. We got vaccinated. If we still get sick it would be nice to be able to get treatment if we end up in an ICU anyway. Some of those treatments that more than likely save lives are a pipe dream given the fight to have them made illegal, but monoclonal antibodies are the one treatment everyone can agree on. Or so I thought.

2. Who said the government should buy monoclonal antibodies for every single person who gets Omicron? Some common sense please hospitalisation numbers are in the hundreds and most of those won't need serious medical intervention. For the 100 ICU cases they are in our hospitals during the peak I'd rather we had some monoclonal antibodies than sit back and do nothing. Not that hard.
 
HoneyBadger35 said:
…right.

Hey remember when someone said A? Well sure, a journalist can make it seem like they said B when you cut up their words and twist them.

Oh it’s a direct quote? Well yeah it looks like they’ve said B when you don’t apply the context.

Oh…the context is exactly as described.

Well I don’t believe they said B freely, they probably did it to not get cancelled.

If you think a person saying B and being directly quoted as saying B and, in the face of repeated proof, genuinely believe that they said B then you’re gaslighting yourself.

Must be nice.
Click to expand...

Must be nice indeed.

What your mate quoted from the article:

“Speaking at the 44th Richard Dimbleby Lecture on December 7, Dame Sarah Gilbert said that until more was known about the Omicron variant 'we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.'

She went on to urge people 'get boosted now'and said: "Every time a new variant arises, vaccine developers have started work on a new version of the vaccine, and the same is true for Omicron. The work starts straight away, at risk, without waiting to find out if a change will be needed. But this may not be needed.

"Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out."

What you said:

Well sure, a journalist can make it seem like they said B when you cut up their words and twist them.

Another look at how the journalist wrote it:

She went on to urge people 'get boosted now'and said: quote quote quote- not saying that.

Later quote:

Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out."

I mean the journalist has done exactly what you are saying she theoretically could do, but you draw the conclusion that she hasn't.

I mean we're not analysing the physics of black holes here guys, its 3 sentences comprising of a little bit of copy, a little bit of paraphrasing, and direct quotes. Not a lot of material to break down. Glad we're wasting 1000's of words on it though. The journalist has pulled the "everyone get vaccinated now, and get boosted" part out of the subsequent quote and stuck it in front of a quote about Omicron as a paraphrase "everyone get boosted" to make it look like the Dr was saying people should get booster for Omicron. There's no subjective reality part to this, that is objectively, in black and white, what the text we are reading contains. Only weeks earlier the same Dr said that for most people OR DELTA the booster was not needed except for the immunocompromised, so her position is: people should be vaccinated. those who actually need a booster should get boosted. She said it is exactly this way just without repeating herself. What changed? Nothing.

Believe whatever your lying eyes want to tell you, you are not seeing what you want to see though. The most decorated scientist of this entire pandemic did not warrant her [or any other] vaccine to be effective against a variant she hasn't even had time to study in a lab, or endorse a change of public health policy in that moment based on her hearing about a new variant. That just not how things work. You've been had by a 23 year old cadet journalist using the kind of entry level persuasive techniques Edward Bernays might as well of [and could of] taught to a chimpanzee with a typewriter 90 years ago. How its easier to fall for this stuff today than is was back in the 1920's is a never ending source of amazement to me, but here we are.
 
I’ve read the actual transcript of her speech which is lengthy (but probably not as long as Moose’s combined entries on it), and I still can’t see where she’s supposedly said that boosters are bad.

Gotta be there though. Because otherwise he’d be wrong about something, and that’s simply not possible.
 
Moose1414 said:
Must be nice indeed.

What your mate quoted from the article:

“Speaking at the 44th Richard Dimbleby Lecture on December 7, Dame Sarah Gilbert said that until more was known about the Omicron variant 'we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.'

She went on to urge people 'get boosted now'and said: "Every time a new variant arises, vaccine developers have started work on a new version of the vaccine, and the same is true for Omicron. The work starts straight away, at risk, without waiting to find out if a change will be needed. But this may not be needed.

"Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out."

What you said:

Well sure, a journalist can make it seem like they said B when you cut up their words and twist them.

Another look at how the journalist wrote it:

She went on to urge people 'get boosted now'and said: quote quote quote- not saying that.

Later quote:

Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out."

I mean the journalist has done exactly what you are saying she theoretically could do, but you draw the conclusion that she hasn't.

I mean we're not analysing the physics of black holes here guys, its 3 sentences comprising of a little bit of copy, a little bit of paraphrasing, and direct quotes. Not a lot of material to break down. Glad we're wasting 1000's of words on it though. The journalist has pulled the "everyone get vaccinated now, and get boosted" part out of the subsequent quote and stuck it in front of a quote about Omicron as a paraphrase "everyone get boosted" to make it look like the Dr was saying people should get booster for Omicron. There's no subjective reality part to this, that is objectively, in black and white, what the text we are reading contains. Only weeks earlier the same Dr said that for most people OR DELTA the booster was not needed except for the immunocompromised, so her position is: people should be vaccinated. those who actually need a booster should get boosted. She said it is exactly this way just without repeating herself. What changed? Nothing.

Believe whatever your lying eyes want to tell you, you are not seeing what you want to see though. The most decorated scientist of this entire pandemic did not warrant her [or any other] vaccine to be effective against a variant she hasn't even had time to study in a lab, or endorse a change of public health policy in that moment based on her hearing about a new variant. That just not how things work. You've been had by a 23 year old cadet journalist using the kind of entry level persuasive techniques Edward Bernays might as well of [and could of] taught to a chimpanzee with a typewriter 90 years ago. How its easier to fall for this stuff today than is was back in the 1920's is a never ending source of amazement to me, but here we are.
Click to expand...

George Clooney Reaction GIF
 
Forward Press said:
George Clooney Reaction GIF
Click to expand...

But of course. I sometimes forget that Miguel is probably not the least intelligent lawyer in Perth after all and that playing the hatchling and making people explain the most of obvious facts in laborious, excruciating detail is a sound tactic as well. Gets the job done eh. Now I've wasted a few hours of my time for absolutely no reason at all. Dark.
 
Moose1414 said:
But of course. I sometimes forget that Miguel is probably not the least intelligent lawyer in Perth after all and that playing the hatchling and making people explain the most of obvious facts in laborious, excruciating detail is a sound tactic as well. Gets the job done eh. Now I've wasted a few hours of my time for absolutely no reason at all. Dark.
Click to expand...
You do seem to have a lot of time to waste
 
Moose1414 said:
Must be nice indeed.

What your mate quoted from the article:

“Speaking at the 44th Richard Dimbleby Lecture on December 7, Dame Sarah Gilbert said that until more was known about the Omicron variant 'we should be cautious, and take steps to slow down the spread of this new variant.'

She went on to urge people 'get boosted now'and said: "Every time a new variant arises, vaccine developers have started work on a new version of the vaccine, and the same is true for Omicron. The work starts straight away, at risk, without waiting to find out if a change will be needed. But this may not be needed.

"Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out."

What you said:

Well sure, a journalist can make it seem like they said B when you cut up their words and twist them.

Another look at how the journalist wrote it:

She went on to urge people 'get boosted now'and said: quote quote quote- not saying that.

Later quote:

Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out."

I mean the journalist has done exactly what you are saying she theoretically could do, but you draw the conclusion that she hasn't.

I mean we're not analysing the physics of black holes here guys, its 3 sentences comprising of a little bit of copy, a little bit of paraphrasing, and direct quotes. Not a lot of material to break down. Glad we're wasting 1000's of words on it though. The journalist has pulled the "everyone get vaccinated now, and get boosted" part out of the subsequent quote and stuck it in front of a quote about Omicron as a paraphrase "everyone get boosted" to make it look like the Dr was saying people should get booster for Omicron. There's no subjective reality part to this, that is objectively, in black and white, what the text we are reading contains. Only weeks earlier the same Dr said that for most people OR DELTA the booster was not needed except for the immunocompromised, so her position is: people should be vaccinated. those who actually need a booster should get boosted. She said it is exactly this way just without repeating herself. What changed? Nothing.

Believe whatever your lying eyes want to tell you, you are not seeing what you want to see though. The most decorated scientist of this entire pandemic did not warrant her [or any other] vaccine to be effective against a variant she hasn't even had time to study in a lab, or endorse a change of public health policy in that moment based on her hearing about a new variant. That just not how things work. You've been had by a 23 year old cadet journalist using the kind of entry level persuasive techniques Edward Bernays might as well of [and could of] taught to a chimpanzee with a typewriter 90 years ago. How its easier to fall for this stuff today than is was back in the 1920's is a never ending source of amazement to me, but here we are.
Click to expand...
Right, so we’ve had 1000 words about how “Getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out” doesn’t mean getting vaccinated now, and getting boosted, is still the best way to protect ourselves. Vaccines are still the way out.

Can we now have 1000 on her Nobel Prize?
 
Moose1414 said:
But of course. I sometimes forget that Miguel is probably not the least intelligent lawyer in Perth after all and that playing the hatchling and making people explain the most of obvious facts in laborious, excruciating detail is a sound tactic as well. Gets the job done eh. Now I've wasted a few hours of my time for absolutely no reason at all. Dark.
Click to expand...

I didn’t ask you to explain yourself in laborious, excruciating detail. That was your way of trying to convince me and everyone else that the actual words the non-Nobel winning scientist said weren’t what she meant.

Something you still haven’t done, by the way. Show of hands, does anyone actually accept the argument that when she said vaccinations and boosters were the way out, she meant vaccinations but not boosters unless you absolutely needed them? Anyone?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bzparkes said:
Imagine being this batshit crazy:

www.news.com.au

Baby ‘turned blue’ after bizarre Covid advice from underground Telegram group

The terrifying extent to which unproven Covid advice is spreading and putting lives at risk has been revealed in a young father’s pleas for help on an underground messaging group.
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au
Click to expand...
This is the best one

“Baby aspirin to thin the blood a little and drop any fever and I would put some ivermectin on the bottoms of her feet,” one group member responded — while others said he should wait to take advice from “experts” in ivermectin usage on the group.
 
Moose1414 said:
This is weirdly political, they are used all over the world who give an f what is happening in the US. Does not apply here.


1. We are almost 95% vaccinated, winging about unvaccinated republicans in Florida and what is or isn't an incentive to get people vaccinated is irrelevant. But I do like the whole "we should deny everyone medicine in case someone thinks theres an insurance policy and they don't have to have the vaccine" which is exactly the point I was making. Denial of medical intervention on people on a global scale in order to increase vaccine take up, about as unethical a thing as is imaginable for public health officials. But thats done now. We got vaccinated. If we still get sick it would be nice to be able to get treatment if we end up in an ICU anyway. Some of those treatments that more than likely save lives are a pipe dream given the fight to have them made illegal, but monoclonal antibodies are the one treatment everyone can agree on. Or so I thought.

2. Who said the government should buy monoclonal antibodies for every single person who gets Omicron? Some common sense please hospitalisation numbers are in the hundreds and most of those won't need serious medical intervention. For the 100 ICU cases they are in our hospitals during the peak I'd rather we had some monoclonal antibodies than sit back and do nothing. Not that hard.
Click to expand...
If you are going to advocate for a course of treatment then please, at least know what it does. The advantage of monoclonal antibodies (which again, seem to not be effective against the Omicron variant) is that they reduce hospitalisations when given to people who are suffering from mild or moderate cases. Once a person has deteriorated to the point where they require hospitalisation, the monoclonal antibody treatment is not the preferred course of treatment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Chief
Win Prizes West Coast Tipping 2024 - Now Open - 🔥 - Reply IN when you join
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
EvilBeagles
E
eaglevision
List Mgmt. Contract, Trade and Draft Discussions - 2024 Edition
156 157 158 159 160
Replies
4K
Views
199K
Elite Pete
E
UseR2006
Prediction John Worsfold Medal / Awards night Discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
244
Views
10K
Avalor
Avalor
Ishmael_
Strategy Back of House Discussion: Targets, Changes, Appointments & Facilities
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
973
Views
71K
Miguel Sanchez
Miguel Sanchez
Keys
  • Locked
List Mgmt. Trade & Draft Discussion 2023 post season - Picks Reid,30,40,49,66 (Bush league)
594 595 596 597 598
Replies
15K
Views
693K
Farang83150
Farang83150
Carbine Chaos
MVP Votes vs. The Blues (Round 19)
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Keys
Keys
Bleedblueandgold
Prediction Changes Round 19 vs Carlton
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
Carbine Chaos
Carbine Chaos

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top