Praising people making decisions from atagi advice... Criticising people for making decisions from atagi advice.
Also... Mentioned a number of times that I don't affiliate with a political party.
Mandatory Vaccinations And Medical Exemptions
- Thread starter Goosecat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Praising people making decisions from atagi advice... Criticising people for making decisions from atagi advice.
Also... Mentioned a number of times that I don't affiliate with a political party.
- May 5, 2015
- 1,717
- 2,481
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You have a strange interpretation of what I wrote. When did Atagi recommend to mandate boosters every 3 months?. It is something that some politicians have tried to push.
If you're smart you'll get a booster after 3 months, its shown to be efficacious for all variants. Could also be the last one you have to get... Of course could be the first of dozens you'll need as we stop mandating and allow sars-covid-2 to keep mutating unabated.
Of course, the word "mandate" isn't mentioned, but the recommendation was to have the booster 3 months after your second vaccination (not sure why you said "every 3 months" as that wasn't the recommendation by anyone). So, the decision from cabinet is that you need that 3rd dose to be classified as "up to date" but they've gone with 6 months as the timeframe. No mention of "mandate" but I'd suspect (IMO) that there may be future situations where people who aren't "up to date" may be in a position that they are unable to be involved. E.g. if the Australian Open was running after this came in place, there would've likely been an "up to date" attendees only rule in place.The ATAGI.
They recommend booster at 3 months after last dose of primary course.
ATAGI statement on defining 'up-to-date' status for COVID-19 vaccination
This guidance summarises 'up-to-date' vaccination status, as defined by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) in their clinical guidance for the use of COVID-19 vaccines.www.health.gov.au
My experience is only anecdotal but I know 4 people all had a tough time worse than the flu one over weight 1 21 year old super fit had fever and was under the weather for a week
I must have missed this post somehow from Drought Break
I personally have taken Vitamin D supplement even up to 10,000 IU a day or 250 micrograms (I think recommend or required is 600 IU daily) but probably have to ask kingswood71 if there is a limit here in Australia.
Right now there is not a scientific consensus on how much Vitamin D supplement one should take or how much is effective.
In my opinion there is no doubt there is a correlation between decreases in respiratory illnesses and vitamin D. There is plenty of studies over the years that have shown this, particularly D3. D3 forms in your skin from UV radiation (mainly where you get it from but you can also get it from foods). You have to convert it through the liver and kidney in order to activate it. From a biochemistry point of view, vitamin D which is actually a hormone, reacts to many receptors and proteins in the body. In other words there are many different reasons we need vitamin D. For one its anti-inflammatory, therefore it should help with fighting off disease. As I said it's a hormone and not actually a vitamin, so it's not soluable in water or blood for that matter and requires proteins for it activate. It reacts with with lipids including cholesterol and therefore it can reduce the amount you have in your blood stream, this could be useful if you have too much cholesterol.
Obliviously been overweight has all kinds of health problems, I would suggest if your friends are overweight there is even more reason to take Vitamin D.
Is it going to help with Covid? Yes is the simple answer as multiple studies have shown, but you need to be getting Vitamin D regularly for a while for it to be effective. If you get Covid and decide to pump yourself like Joe Rogan did with Vitamin D it's already too late.
As I said vitamin D3 needs to be converted into active form and therefore your kidney and liver need to be relatively healthy if you are supplementing, there are some people that might find it toxic to take over a certain amount. I'm not your GP and you should obviously consult with your GP before you take ANY supplements. Get a blood test before you take medication or supplements.
- May 5, 2015
- 1,717
- 2,481
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Thanks mate. Appreciate it.
Vitamin D does have roles in immune modulation. The issue is that we dont really know what a "normal" blood level is...This is partly due to how its measured as different assays produce widely different results. We generally go with under 50nmol/L as low and above as that as been "normal". The issue arises when some studies have shown that once levels get high, there is a link with increased cancers and an increased mortality.
The risk of to much intake of supps, is hypercalcemia.
What is the optimal level of vitamin D?
Defining an optimal level of vitamin D drives clinical treatment decision making: should treatment begin at 25(OH)D levels <30, <50 or <75 nmol/L, and what is the target level…
www.racgp.org.au
Vitamin D does have roles in immune modulation. The issue is that we dont really know what a "normal" blood level is...This is partly due to how its measured as different assays produce widely different results. We generally go with under 50nmol/L as low and above as that as been "normal". The issue arises when some studies have shown that once levels get high, there is a link with increased cancers and an increased mortality.
The risk of to much intake of supps, is hypercalcemia.
What is the optimal level of vitamin D?
Defining an optimal level of vitamin D drives clinical treatment decision making: should treatment begin at 25(OH)D levels <30, <50 or <75 nmol/L, and what is the target level…www.racgp.org.au
What do you normally recommend your patients if they under 50 or even 25nmol/L for that matter.
Yeah if below 50, I would start cholecalciferol tabs, either one or more depending on what the level is....
Also recommend 20-30 minutes a couple of times a week in the early morning sun
What’s driving the 3-month idea is that each of vaccines lose asymptomatic efficacy completely at 20-24weeks against Omicron. These are studies published just after Xmas and on from there. So doing it at 12 weeks gives time to vaccinate. 10mill done so far and 9 to go at the current 1mill a week. Still effective though against severe illness on average. The big issue is the high number of people triple mRNA vaxed. If mixed mRNA better and best either novavax/Az first cycle followed by an mRNA vax preferably Moderna.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Any chance you can provide the data that backs this statement up?
RedV3x
It's about time some mods started being fair
That could be very well true with so few people dying from vaccinations up to now and the the unprecedented level of vaccinations now
but it doesn't compare to huge number of people saved from death and serious afflictions.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,946
- 43,375
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Not to say it is, but this could be both correct and irrelevant.
this was said by people in the know when they first started using PCR tests for Covid19. These people were calls "conspiracy theorists" by Governments and Media.
Mainly because it's not true.
A question regarding accuracy of RAT.
From what i have read a RAT is about 80% accurate. What is the main reason for the 20% miss?
Is it severity, how long you have had the virus, an individuals biology.....other factors?
For example if someone with covid tested negative on a RAT would they eventually (in most cases) test positive if they tested daily?
From what i have read a RAT is about 80% accurate. What is the main reason for the 20% miss?
Is it severity, how long you have had the virus, an individuals biology.....other factors?
For example if someone with covid tested negative on a RAT would they eventually (in most cases) test positive if they tested daily?
sr36
Hall of Famer
Their positives are very accurate. But generally need a higher viral load than a pcr to trigger positives, so not as accurate if you're asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. But even PCR often needed a couple of days until over a week of viral reproduction before the viral load was high enough to trigger a positive and thus be confident about a negative being accurate - might have changed with Omicron?
Here's a good article I read in Cosmos earlier this year.
From the vault: RATs to the rescue: understanding our transition to rapid antigen testing
Rapid antigen tests have swiftly become a core focus of our COVID management strategy. How much do we know about them?
cosmosmagazine.com
"As their sensitivity is directly tied to the viral load present in the sample, RATs are generally only useful in detecting high levels of the virus. In practical terms, this means that they will only give accurate results within approximately the first five days of infection, and only if sufficient levels of the virus are present."
It depends largely on the viral load and on pre-test probabilities. If by 80% accuracy, you are meaning sensitivity, this means that in 80% of the cases the positive is a real positive, but 20% of the negatives could well really be positives.
Specificity on the other hand (which the TGA has approved at 98%) would accurately determine that 98% of the negatives are true negatives, but 2% of the positives are really negatives.
Pre-test probabilities means that if you have symptoms or are a close contact of a case, its more likely that a positive is a true positive and not a false positive.
sr36
Hall of Famer
They measure their accuracy against pcr results. 80% means it's picking up 80% of the positives that a pcr does. As pcr tests can take a few days of viral reproduction to register a positive, they're really missing more than 20% of the real positives - depending on how you define positive.
I'd define positive for the purposes of a pandemic as either a Pos RAT or a Pos PCR
Yes aware of how they tested RAT's. Latent period is relevant.
sr36
Hall of Famer
Positive pcr is certainly how most countries have gone, until recently when numbers got too high and many started also including rat. China has stuck with symptomatic throughout.I'd define positive for the purposes of a pandemic as either a Pos RAT or a Pos PCR
Yes aware of how they tested RAT's. Latent period is relevant.
I don't think it really matters, but if you stick with the more traditional symptomatic, you get a much higher death and hospitalization rate to help shut up comparisons to influenza.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #7,025
Complete and utter bullshit.
53 million jabs in Australia for 11 deaths:
| Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
53 million COVID cases (unvaccinated) would lead to deaths in the hundreds of thousands.
