Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

All borders to reopen.

Old 14th Nov 2022, 17:50
  #9741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Iondon
Posts: 56
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
Or… We could have a look-see at this study:

“…study of five million clients of US Veterans Affairs health services found that for the vaccinated, reinfection resulted in more serious health outcomes than their initial infection. In other words, vaccination including boosters did not decrease the risk of reinfection among clients of US veterans health services but did increase the severity of symptoms. Nor did vaccination provide any more protection against reinfection than the unvaccinated had…”


https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1749502/v1
It's worth actually reading that link. The study says nothing of the sort re vaccination increasing severity of symptoms. It would be incredible if the study really said that as the whole world would be jumping on it.

The guy who you quoted seems a little unreliable. He's notorious for copying made up facts and disclaims any responsibility for that. He is not even a medical doctor. He has given different accounts of what subject he is a doctor in!

It's bad form to link to a report and then show a summary of it which is made up BS.
Kent Based is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 18:42
  #9742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Kent Based
It's worth actually reading that link. The study says nothing of the sort re vaccination increasing severity of symptoms. It would be incredible if the study really said that as the whole world would be jumping on it.

The guy who you quoted seems a little unreliable. He's notorious for copying made up facts and disclaims any responsibility for that. He is not even a medical doctor. He has given different accounts of what subject he is a doctor in!

It's bad form to link to a report and then show a summary of it which is made up BS.
Hmmm… if he is a “little unreliable” then you can offer up some quotes of same… ?..

Re the study. I revisited the study that I linked to via The Hatchard Report (THR) and noted it were an abstract of a pre-print dated 17/June/22. Following the link at that site gives the current release published 10/November/22. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-02051-3

The THR claims were made reference the pre-print version. As I am unable to read the full pre-print version I do not know what changes were made for publication so am unable to comment on veracity of the conclusions that THR made. I am yet to fully read the current release.



.

Last edited by Flying Binghi; 14th Nov 2022 at 19:22.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 19:05
  #9743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Iondon
Posts: 56
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
I just showed you an example where what he claimed is not substantiated in the report you linked.

Perhaps you can tell us what your quoted Dr is a doctor of?
Kent Based is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 19:39
  #9744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 916
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
About a years back pay for 5 drivers. They are running up fast atm at the Fairwork place.

https://rebekahbarnett.substack.com/...-train-drivers
Bend alot is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 19:41
  #9745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Kent Based
I just showed you an example where what he claimed is not substantiated in the report you linked.

Perhaps you can tell us what your quoted Dr is a doctor of?
That’s it then. Only one example..

As to his Dr claims… https://hatchardreport.com/about-guy/


Certainly a bit of a ‘different’ sort of chap..
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 20:24
  #9746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Iondon
Posts: 56
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
I'm pointing out the claim re the vaccinated is baseless. You added the links yourself and there's enough in them to show the report doesn't back his claim.

Your latest link has added nothing to make me believe anything he says.
Kent Based is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 20:33
  #9747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 337
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Who could have guessed that the climate change denying guy also is against vaccinations!?
TimmyTee is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 20:59
  #9748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyTee
Who could have guessed that the climate change denying guy also is against vaccinations!?
I spot a Bot…

Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 21:07
  #9749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Kent Based
I'm pointing out the claim re the vaccinated is baseless. You added the links yourself and there's enough in them to show the report doesn't back his claim.

Your latest link has added nothing to make me believe anything he says.


I don’t agree with every thing posted on the site: https://hatchardreport.com/


…back to the research papers. Kent Based, you do understand the difference between the preprint and published versions of a research paper ?



Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2022, 23:12
  #9750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
Or… We could have a look-see at this study:

“…study of five million clients of US Veterans Affairs health services found that for the vaccinated, reinfection resulted in more serious health outcomes than their initial infection. In other words, vaccination including boosters did not decrease the risk of reinfection among clients of US veterans health services but did increase the severity of symptoms. Nor did vaccination provide any more protection against reinfection than the unvaccinated had…”


Fear-mongering nonsense..

This VA study (like the VA long Covid study) is junk. An observational study looking for associations. That's it.

The group that got reinfected was way sicker at baseline.
Look at Supp table 1 and Supp table 6 (support data is where authors bury all the data they have to include, but know that the lay press will never read).
Way more lived in residential aged care (nursing homes) - 6.8 V 2.6%
More type 2 diabetes - 36% V 32%
More anxiety (23 v 15%) and depression (21 v 15%) - these are very significant comorbidities regarding propensity to report other symptoms)
During the FIRST infection, those patients who subsequently got reinfected were more likely to be admitted to hospital (18% V 9%), more likely to be admitted to ICU (5 V 2%), and more likely to receive antivirals & immunomodulators (17 V 12%) compared to those who didn't get reinfected. than those who didn't get infected.

The reinfected group also had a far poorer immunisation history than those who were not reinfected. Thus, 62% of those not reinfected had received no immunisations, while 87% of those reinfected had received no immunisations (this is historical data which is why these numbers are so low)

So those who got reinfected were sicker across a range of measures, had received fewer vaccinations. and their 1st infection was (not surprisingly) more severe than those who did not get reinfected.

This study only shows that frailer sicker non-immunised people do worse. That's it.
slats11 is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2022, 03:38
  #9751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 337
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
I spot a Bot…

and I spot tin foil. A lot of tin foil.
TimmyTee is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2022, 16:05
  #9752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Iondon
Posts: 56
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi


…back to the research papers. Kent Based, you do understand the difference between the preprint and published versions of a research paper ?

It's not difficult
1) You saw a claim which seems incredible
2) You cut and pasted the claim without checking if it was true.
3) You also pasted the supporting link. I don't know whether you read that, understood that or even bothered to examine the link at all?
4) The fact that your link doesn't support your claim is an issue you caused by blindly cut and pasting.

I know most covid vaccine deniers like to proclaim that they "do their own research". Perhaps try examining your sources in future?
Kent Based is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2022, 01:43
  #9753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by TimmyTee
and I spot tin foil. A lot of tin foil.
I spot a preschooler Bot…
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2022, 01:44
  #9754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Kent Based
It's not difficult
1) You saw a claim which seems incredible
2) You cut and pasted the claim without checking if it was true.
3) You also pasted the supporting link. I don't know whether you read that, understood that or even bothered to examine the link at all?
4) The fact that your link doesn't support your claim is an issue you caused by blindly cut and pasting.

I know most covid vaccine deniers like to proclaim that they "do their own research". Perhaps try examining your sources in future?
Hmmm…

Kent Based, you do understand the difference between the preprint and published versions of a research paper ?


Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2022, 12:36
  #9755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 26 Likes on 7 Posts
I understand the difference between a boomer crapping on about how bad vaccines are and the difference between a boomer with a real life. Get over it tossers…the rest of the world is getting on with it, Jesus Christ…, now go and check on your rapidly declining property investments…
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2022, 15:43
  #9756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ThunderstormFactory
This is incorrect. Besides the fact that you are required to be vaccinated to even enter the country, masks are still required in Texas of all places at certain locations such as federal buildings and hospitals/medical buildings. Also you’ll see quite a high percentage of customer facing jobs’ employees wearing masks; more than back home anyway.
Not true, in Texas the only places where masks were required after the first few months were those places where the federal govt ruled, like the airport.
All hat and no cows is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2022, 19:36
  #9757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by slats11

Fear-mongering nonsense..

This VA study (like the VA long Covid study) is junk. An observational study looking for associations. That's it.

The group that got reinfected was way sicker at baseline.
Look at Supp table 1 and Supp table 6 (support data is where authors bury all the data they have to include, but know that the lay press will never read).
Way more lived in residential aged care (nursing homes) - 6.8 V 2.6%
More type 2 diabetes - 36% V 32%
More anxiety (23 v 15%) and depression (21 v 15%) - these are very significant comorbidities regarding propensity to report other symptoms)
During the FIRST infection, those patients who subsequently got reinfected were more likely to be admitted to hospital (18% V 9%), more likely to be admitted to ICU (5 V 2%), and more likely to receive antivirals & immunomodulators (17 V 12%) compared to those who didn't get reinfected. than those who didn't get infected.

The reinfected group also had a far poorer immunisation history than those who were not reinfected. Thus, 62% of those not reinfected had received no immunisations, while 87% of those reinfected had received no immunisations (this is historical data which is why these numbers are so low)

So those who got reinfected were sicker across a range of measures, had received fewer vaccinations. and their 1st infection was (not surprisingly) more severe than those who did not get reinfected.

This study only shows that frailer sicker non-immunised people do worse. That's it.
I haven’t read the paper in depth yet. slats11, you seem to have read the paper in depth. Reference the published paper, can you tell us what defined being vaccinated ? For example, the minute somebody receives their first vaccine, are they considered as vaccinated ? …or might it be they are not considered vaccinated until say two weeks after they receive the vaccine ?




.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2022, 03:46
  #9758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Angle of Attack
I understand the difference between a boomer crapping on about how bad vaccines are and the difference between a boomer with a real life. Get over it tossers…the rest of the world is getting on with it, Jesus Christ…, now go and check on your rapidly declining property investments…

Hmmm… things aren’t over, just yet. Many years of litigation to come..

A lot of innocent people were bullied into taking an un-proven vaccine for entirely corrupted reasons. Here’s an example of just one workplace:

“…Qantas will make it mandatory for all of its 22,000 workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19…

Mr Joyce said, …"Making sure they are vaccinated given the potential of this virus to spread is so important and I think it's the kind of safety leadership people would expect from us," he said.


"We provide an essential service, so this will help guard against the disruptions that can be caused by just one positive COVID case shutting down a freight facility or airport terminal."…” (18/Aug/2021)


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-...emic/100386206

Last edited by Flying Binghi; 17th Nov 2022 at 08:10.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2022, 04:11
  #9759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes on 17 Posts
Binghi, I admire your tenacity and unwavering focus.

As for Joyce's comment ("We provide an essential service"), I'd disagree there as, while it is an essential service, no, they do not provide it. "Providing," in the sense of the word as was used, is an absolute which means flights routinely would depart A for B as expected. This is far from the experience of many would-be passengers the last few years.
Eclan is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2022, 01:12
  #9760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Eclan
Binghi, I admire your tenacity and unwavering focus.

As for Joyce's comment ("We provide an essential service"), I'd disagree there as, while it is an essential service, no, they do not provide it. "Providing," in the sense of the word as was used, is an absolute which means flights routinely would depart A for B as expected. This is far from the experience of many would-be passengers the last few years.
Eclan, I’ll stick to the china virus side of things.. …Re: now that they is all vaccinated there should be no virus issues..
Flying Binghi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.