The off topic thread 5.0

Remove this Banner Ad

Bojan KantKick said:
Interesting discussion about the flu jab. Covid vaccines appear to be significantly more effective than the flu jab. There was one year (2014-15 I think) where the effectiveness of the flu jab in the UK was only 3%. There also appears to be significant differences in effectiveness of the flu jab for different age groups.
Some interesting data in the link below:
vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk

Flu vaccine

vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone expected COVID vaccines to be ready as quickly as they were, or for the first generation vaccines to be so effective. Miracle of modern science.
 
ADL9798 said:
I don't think anyone expected COVID vaccines to be ready as quickly as they were, or for the first generation vaccines to be so effective. Miracle of modern science.
Click to expand...
People always harp on about the vaccines being produced so quickly - do they not realise this isn’t the 1950s anymore?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

bok_party said:
People always harp on about the vaccines being produced so quickly - do they not realise this isn’t the 1950s anymore?
Click to expand...
The speed of the process has made it impossible to fully assess the effectiveness, and potential side effects. We're still learning about those.

The urgency of the situation was such that we couldn't really wait, but I don't think people's concerns about how quick this has happened are totally unjustified.

Although for adults we've now had 9 months and shitloads of data, that will start to come through for kids in the next few months. So as we go along, those concerns should get less and less.
 
moomba said:
The speed of the process has made it impossible to fully assess the effectiveness, and potential side effects. We're still learning about those.

The urgency of the situation was such that we couldn't really wait, but I don't think people's concerns about how quick this has happened are totally unjustified.

Although for adults we've now had 9 months and shitloads of data, that will start to come through for kids in the next few months. So as we go along, those concerns should get less and less.
Click to expand...
You'd hope so!
 
moomba said:
The speed of the process has made it impossible to fully assess the effectiveness, and potential side effects. We're still learning about those.

The urgency of the situation was such that we couldn't really wait, but I don't think people's concerns about how quick this has happened are totally unjustified.

Although for adults we've now had 9 months and shitloads of data, that will start to come through for kids in the next few months. So as we go along, those concerns should get less and less.
Click to expand...

On concerns about vaccine long term side effects:

Newsroom

Queensland Health newsroom
www.health.qld.gov.au www.health.qld.gov.au
www.uwa.edu.au

How we know the COVID vaccine won't have long term side effects

As Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout begins this week, many people still have questions about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
www.uwa.edu.au
 
Interesting that Guillain-Barre Syndrome has just been listed or is about to be listed as a (very rare) side effect of AZ.

As much investment, effort and caution that has been shown into the development of these vaccine, these are the sort of things that will only be uncovered with the benefit of time.

Because of the situation we were in it was important to get the vaccines out there as soon as possible. And from what we know you can still say that for most there is greater risks not taking a vaccine than taking it.

But I don't think we should downplay that risk.
 
FWIW, I'm due to have my third jab in December. Government are trying to bring dates forward to get more triple jabbed by the winter.

Don't know it'll be a six monthly thing from here or the third will give full, long term immunity.

Already some talk that mooted restrictions on people that aren't double jabbed will be applied to people that aren't triple jabbed.
 
moomba said:
FWIW, I'm due to have my third jab in December. Government are trying to bring dates forward to get more triple jabbed by the winter.

Don't know it'll be a six monthly thing from here or the third will give full, long term immunity.

Already some talk that mooted restrictions on people that aren't double jabbed will be applied to people that aren't triple jabbed.
Click to expand...
They better offer me the 3rd jab before bringing in any restrictions!
 
moomba said:
Interesting that Guillain-Barre Syndrome has just been listed or is about to be listed as a (very rare) side effect of AZ.

As much investment, effort and caution that has been shown into the development of these vaccine, these are the sort of things that will only be uncovered with the benefit of time.

Because of the situation we were in it was important to get the vaccines out there as soon as possible. And from what we know you can still say that for most there is greater risks not taking a vaccine than taking it.

But I don't think we should downplay that risk.
Click to expand...
If it's anything like the risk of GBS from the flu vaccine, it's 1 or 2 additional cases per million. So small.

But again, not that new.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bojan KantKick said:
What are shame. At least you can continue to be offended from afar 👍
Click to expand...
I'm not allowed to pass comment because I can't vote?

Why are people so offended from other people having an opinion, so much so that they attempt to stifle them. It makes sense that the number one member of the pedants and opinion prevention society is the person to like your post
 
Bradesmaen said:
I'm not allowed to pass comment because I can't vote?

Why are people so offended from other people having an opinion, so much so that they attempt to stifle them. It makes sense that the number one member of the pedants and opinion prevention society is the person to like your post
Click to expand...

Didn't you have a whinge the other day when Gero spoke his mind because he should just vote Dan out?
 
Bradesmaen said:
I'm not allowed to pass comment because I can't vote?

Why are people so offended from other people having an opinion, so much so that they attempt to stifle them. It makes sense that the number one member of the pedants and opinion prevention society is the person to like your post
Click to expand...
Never said you couldn't pass comment. That is in your head. A bit like Boris.
 
SM said:
Didn't you have a whinge the other day when Gero spoke his mind because he should just vote Dan out?
Click to expand...
He most certainly did but you see that was me becritical of a left politician and Boris is conservative. So clearly the rules are different.

I’m sure those who are as displeased with Scomo as I am Andrews will try and vote him out, and up til then will voice theirs views as well.

Dan’s government was closing in on 300 days in lockdown, passed 1000 deaths on Thursday, many of which could have been avoided if HQ didn’t employ glorified bouncers to monitor infected people, and now they are reluctant to adhere to a freedom of information request for material on health advice used to form policy.

hawkman put up an article two days ago showing precisely why we the public deserve to see that information.

www.news.com.au

Brutal take-down of mask rule claim

EXCLUSIVE
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au

The authors of a “world-first” Australian face mask study that was ripped apart by experts as “very, very low quality” have issued a response to the criticism.

A “world-first” Australian study which Victoria’s government has held up as proof its mandatory face mask policy worked is riddled with basic errors and should never have been published in a major journal, medical researchers and experts say.

Victoria first made face masks mandatory outside the home in Melbourne during its second coronavirus wave in July 2020, but the Department of Health has been unable to provide any scientific research or studies upon which the decision was made.

Instead, the Department of Health directed news.com.au to a paper published in July this year by the Burnet Institute – an influential public health body which has come under fire in recent months for its alarmist predictions – as justification for the mandate which has resulted in thousands of dollars in fines for Victorians.

The study claimed the mandatory face mask rule had turned the pandemic “almost overnight”.
“There has been a lot of low-quality research that has come out in the pandemic, but for this to be used as a basis for a policy change is staggering,” said Dr Kyle Sheldrick, a medical researcher and PhD candidate at the University of NSW.

Melbourne made outdoor masks mandatory in July last year. Picture: David Crosling/NCA NewsWire
‘I agree, it’s crap’
Dr Sheldrick was one of a group of independent scientists who recently highlighted major issues in a number of studies held up by proponents of the drug ivermectin to treat Covid-19.
“To me it’s very clear this has not had a close peer review, partly because of the serious and substantive issues, but [also] it just clearly hasn’t been proofread,” he said.
“When I look at this particular piece of research, it is very, very low quality. I was staggered to see this was published by a major journal.”
Another researcher, an eminent Australian clinician and scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity, was equally scathing.

“I agree, it’s crap,” he said.
“It’s extremely lightweight. I think it’s a totally feeble article. It doesn’t have a rigorous methodology and it is weak in its scientific inference. I’ve been around a long time – I teach how you do clear thinking, I teach how you do reproducible science. I’m a bit of a stickler for these things.”

Dr Sheldrick said despite its obvious flaws, very few scientists would be willing to publicly call out the study.
“Not just in relation to this paper but in general I think there has been a reluctance to criticise research and to criticise public health interventions [during the pandemic] and to be seen as a wrecker,” he said.
“Unfortunately there is a culture in science which sees criticising other researchers or research as something fundamentally bad – that we should be presenting a united front to laypeople.”

Burnet says study ‘world-leading’
Burnet says study ‘world-leading’
The study, published in the journal Plos One, purported to show that mandating masks was the “single most important control measure” that “turned an exponential increase in community transmission into an exponential decrease, almost overnight”, the Burnet Institute said in a July press release.
“The key finding from this study is that masks work,” one co-author was quoted as saying.
“Whilst we are confident that masks are highly effective indoors, we don’t know how much more effective they are indoors compared to outdoors. Importantly given the growing evidence of outdoor transmission of the Delta variant, it makes sense that masks are worn both indoors and outdoors during a Covid-19 outbreak.”
The Burnet Institute advises state governments including Victoria and NSW on Covid-19 responses.
The paper’s competing interests statement notes that five of the 12 authors “provide guidance to the Victorian government’s Covid-19 response”.

News.com.au has sought clarification from the Burnet Institute as to whether any of the paper’s authors specifically advised the Victorian government on the introduction of the mandatory mask policy.
The Burnet Institute described the study as “world-leading” – and the finding would be highly significant, given the lack of published research supporting mask mandates, which have been one of the most controversial public health measures during the pandemic.
In the paper, the authors themselves noted that international bodies such as the World Health Organisation and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended face masks, but that “despite these recommendations there is limited data from community settings supporting mask use”.

Experts have previously said there is little evidence face masks prevent outdoor transmission.
One of the largest real-world studies, a randomised controlled trial of nearly 5000 Danish people, found virtually no difference in Covid-19 infection rates when people wore masks outside the home.

The Burnet Institute says masks turned the pandemic ‘overnight’. Picture: Ian Currie/NCA NewsWire
‘The data set is useless’
The Burnet Institute study relied on images from the photo library of The Age newspaper showing Melbourne community settings to conclude that mask usage rose from 43 per cent to 97 per cent after the July 22 mandate came into effect.
Dr Sheldrick said it was “hard to think of a worse methodology to answer this question than just looking at which photos are collected by a metropolitan newspaper”.
“Even ignoring the fact that the photos were taken for an editorial purpose, that this is not a random sample, when you look at the actual data in the Excel spreadsheet it is stunning to me,” he said.

The spreadsheet lists the date, time and location of 44 photos – 19 taken before the announcement, 18 after mask rule came into effect and seven in between. Nearly all of the photos in the before group were taken between 2pm and 4pm, while nearly all of the photos in the after group were taken between 8am and 12pm.
“Which just means the data set is useless,” Dr Sheldrick said.
“As a responsible researcher, I can’t draw any conclusions from that. You could just as easily draw the conclusion that mask wearing is different in the morning and afternoon. If a student came to me and said, I’m going to compare these two sets of photos and draw some conclusion about whether a policy worked, you would send them away to think about it.”

The second expert agreed.
“If a student presented the photographic data it would be ridiculed,” he said.

Dr Sheldrick said it “wasn’t a defensible methodology from the beginning, and certainly once they had the data it should have been abandoned”.

“Pushing ahead to draw any sort of causal inference is not appropriate,” he said.
“If I had been involved [in the study], and one of my collaborators came to me with that data and said we’re going to draw these conclusions, I would have asked for my name to be taken off.”

Commenters on Plos One have highlighted other errors, including the authors’ claim that there was “no reason to believe that mask usage changed in the healthcare setting during the study period”.
Safer Care Victoria’s chief medical officer Professor Andrew Wilson told the RACGP’s newsGP in October last year that the state’s guidance had been updated on August 1.
“In response to emerging evidence, the Victorian guidance was upgraded on August 1 to use Tier 3 PPE [including N95 respirators] in caring for patients with known or suspected Covid-19 infection who are cohorted in wards, intensive care units and emergency departments,” he said.

Confirmed cases of outdoor transmission are very rare. Picture: Luis Enrique Ascui/NCA NewsWire
Paper admits ‘causality’ difficult
More broadly, Dr Sheldrick said it was odd that the paper singled out the mask mandate as the key reason for the fall in transmission out of all of Victoria’s sweeping lockdown measures, which included retail closures, movement restrictions and an 8pm curfew.
The paper’s authors even conceded that Covid-19 transmission fell at the same time in rural areas, where masks were not introduced.
“Care should be taken in ascribing causality,” they wrote.

“We cannot determine whether masks had a direct effect or whether near-universal adoption of masks reminded wearers to engage in other behaviours recommended to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, including regular hand hygiene and physical distancing. Interestingly, introduction of masks in Melbourne coincided with a decrease in the growth rate in rural areas, where masks were not introduced, which is consistent with an indirect effect, a decrease in seeding of rural areas from the Melbourne, or both.”
Dr Sheldrick said it “certainly seems like” the authors were working backwards from a conclusion.
The second expert agreed it was “quite possible” that was the case.
“It doesn’t seem like [they] are looking for the most obvious interpretation of the data, because that would be to say this was not just a mask mandate,” Dr Sheldrick said.
“It seems like there is a selective latching onto one possible explanation. It really looks like an exercise in justifying mask mandates rather than a neutral research activity trying to find the truth.”

The Burnet Institute says ‘everyone is entitled to their views’. Picture: David Crosling/NCA NewsWire
Burnet ‘stands by’ paper
In a statement on Thursday evening, the Burnet Institute said it “stands by our paper” and described this article as “disappointing and unprofessional”.
“We accept that not everyone has to agree with our work, and the two scientists quoted in the article, one anonymously, are welcome to their views,” the statement said.
“Others, including the peer-reviewers of our paper thought differently, although we note that no other independent view was presented in the article.”
The Burnet Institute said the paper “showed that the introduction of the mandatory mask policy in Melbourne coincided with a marked decline in cases” and that “the mask policy was introduced in isolation from other restrictions which allowed for a unique assessment of its potential”.
“This was unusual and why we claimed it was a ‘world first’ at the time,” it said.

“Furthermore, the primary detailed statistical analysis was supported in two different ways, linking the mandatory mask policy to increased mask use. We also note that now, over a year later than when this work was done, there is a huge body of international work supporting the use of face masks, which is presumably why virtually all jurisdictions in Australia and around the world adopt them.”

On the effectiveness of outdoor masks, the Burnet Institute said the policy introduced “was for indoor and outdoor mask use and so we assessed it”, adding “we do not know if an indoor-only policy would work as well”.
“Everyone is entitled to their views, but to publish a headline ‘it’s crap’ that is attributed to the unnamed scientist, is very disappointing and unprofessional,” the statement concluded.

Transmission also fell in rural areas where masks weren’t mandated. Picture: Ian Currie/NCA NewsWire
Virus risk ‘far less’ outdoors
Australians across the country have been hit with millions of dollars in fines for breaching Covid-19 public health orders since the start of the pandemic, the bulk of which relate to failing to wear a face mask in various settings.
In July this year, NSW Health admitted that there had not been a single confirmed case of outdoor transmission in the state during the entire pandemic.
News.com.au asked NSW Health to confirm whether there had been any known cases of outdoor transmission since July, but a spokeswoman would say only that they were “relatively uncommon”.

“The risk of Covid-19 transmission is far less in outdoor settings than in indoor settings, if people maintain physical distance,” she said.
“While confirmed cases of outdoor transmission are relatively uncommon, in many cases it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact point of transmission, especially if people have been in each other’s company for long periods of time.”
Victoria’s Department of Health says there have been “dozens” of cases linked to outdoor events including at the MCC Members Reserve and AAMI Park.

“Face masks remain an important measure in our fight against this highly contagious and deadly virus,” a spokeswoman said.
“While the risk of outdoor transmission is substantially lower, superspreader events can still happen outside and we need to remain cautious as we gradually open up and move towards 80 per cent double dose.”

There is ‘limited data from community settings supporting mask use’. Picture: David Crosling/NCA NewsWire
Journalists pushed mask rule
Former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian made face masks mandatory outdoors for the first time in August this year, having previously resisted the move.

At the time, she acknowledged part of the reason was that it “makes it easier for police” to identify rule-breakers.
“Our concern is that when people are walking past a group of people or accidentally bumping into people, that can cause that fleeting contact and transmission,” she said.
“It also makes it easier for police to make sure everybody is sticking to the rule. Unless you are exercising, masks outdoors applies to every single citizen across NSW, whether you live in Sydney or the bush, everybody has to respect that.”

News.com.au also asked NSW Health to provide any studies or research that had informed the decision, but did not receive a response.
Ms Berejiklian’s former strategist Ehssan Veiszadeh told The Sydney Morning Herald that it was persistent pressure from the media at daily press conferences about copying various Victorian measures – such as curfews and mandatory masks outdoors – that ultimately saw them adopted in NSW.
“If there are certain questions repeated every day with the same kind of ferocity, it does become an issue that bureaucracies and governments need to respond to, and internally they try to come up with answers,” Mr Veiszadeh said.
“There would be occasions when that media response becomes a policy response.”

The mandatory mask rule was scrapped last Monday as NSW emerged from more than 100 days of lockdown.
Masks are still mandatory outside the home in Victoria for everyone over the age of 12, and will remain so until the state reaches 80 per cent double-dose vaccination.
Premier Daniel Andrews was fined a total of $400 earlier this month after being caught out twice failing to wear a mask outdoors.
Click to expand...

And this isn’t about gunning for masks, I hope the Burnet Institute’s research was sound and our mask efforts for a year have resulted in less covid, but if it isn’t then this FoI request needs to find out what other flawed advice were our freedom’s and liberties restricted based off that alone.

As for Brades’ early remark to me, the article I showed was talking about how Vic Government was being run almost solely out of The Premier’s Office and the hundreds of non-elected public servants. Yet when HQ went awry it was the health department staff who fell on a sword (unbeknown to us public at the time this was the arrangement), and now the government is resisting the FoI request stating that “the health department will consider the request”. The same health department sidelined by the Premier’s Office.
 
Last edited:
Art Vandelay_ said:
He most certainly did but you see that was me becritical of a left politician and Boris is conservative. So clearly the rules are different.

I’m sure those who are as displeased with Scomo as I am Andrews will try and vote him out, and up til then will voice theirs views as well.

Dan’s government was closing in on 300 days in lockdown, passed 1000 deaths on Thursday, many of which could have been avoided if HQ didn’t employ glorified bouncers to monitor infected people, and now they are reluctant to adhere to a freedom of information request for material on health advice used to form policy.

hawkman put up an article two days ago showing precisely why we the public deserve to see that information.

www.news.com.au

Brutal take-down of mask rule claim

EXCLUSIVE
www.news.com.au www.news.com.au
And this isn’t about gunning for masks, I hope the Burnet Institute’s research was sound and our mask efforts for a year have resulted in less covid, but if it isn’t then this FoI request needs to find out what other flawed advice were our freedom’s and liberties restricted based off that alone.
Click to expand...

The temporal association between introduction of mask mandates and reduction in incidence the Burnet presented in this paper was pretty robust evidence of the efficacy of masks at a population level imo.

Criticism of their decision to use photos published in the Age to validate their claim that mask wearing increased after the mandate was introduced is fair, but the study findings still stand up even if you reject this element as invalid.

This is backed up by countless other studies internationally which prove that mask wearing reduces transmission. Australian state & federal governments made the correct call following this advice.

Agree that FOI requests should be actioned, I understand there have been massive backlogs in every state during Covid due to volume of requests which has probably contributed to slow/non-response.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatBarryB said:
No surprise the man is a walking disaster…

www.abc.net.au

British government criticised for following scientists' COVID-19 advice without question

The British government waited too long to impose a lockdown in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, missing a chance to contain the disease and leading to thousands of unnecessary deaths, a parliamentary report has concluded.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
Wait....so Boris is being criticised for following scientific advice. I don't particularly like the man but I wish people would make their bloody minds up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jatz
The on topic thread 4.0
191 192 193 194 195
Replies
5K
Views
131K
Bradesmaen
Bradesmaen
Bostonian
The Sportswashing mega thread.
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
224
Views
8K
Zidane98
Zidane98
Zidane98
Official 2023/2024 Uber Eats Ligue 1 / French football thread (On Bein Sports)
2 3
Replies
67
Views
4K
chef
chef
JeffreyCC
Celtic FC - Follow the Bhoys Thread
Replies
6
Views
495
JeffreyCC
JeffreyCC
giggler99
  • Locked
A-League A-Leagues Men and Women 2023/24 Off Season Thread
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
190
Views
10K
giggler99
giggler99
chef
2023/24 Predictions Thread
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
Frank Bunn
F
RossFC
Transfer Discussion Thread
191 192 193 194 195
Replies
5K
Views
115K
RPCB
RPCB

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top