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

QF mandates Vaccine

Old 24th Nov 2021, 23:57
  #1201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mycenae
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by Mullah Kintyre View Post
No offence intended but what I wish people would work on in any branch of mathematics is the basics such as you do not express a lower value by using a multiplication of the original, higher value by a whole number. "5 times" what? Does "5 times" mean one fifth, ie 20% of something else, or one sixth being the five x plus the one, ie 17%? The correct method is to use a fraction.

This lesson is taught in secondary school or possibly even primary, I don't remember. I'm not sure what they teach today aside from critical race theory, the new reality of 57 genders and Bruce Pascoe's Aussie "history" but this method of expressing values is becoming very common as the general population is dumbed down bit by bit. It's always disappointing to see supposedly well-educated professional pilots making these errors.
I’m always disappointed by the mistakes and assumptions “well-educated professional pilots” make about the Australian national curriculum.

Maths is poorly understood in the general population and is it really a surprise when knowledge is derided in our society? The other evening I was listening to a popular music radio DJ asking people to phone in with “useless stuff they learnt at school. “Algebra”, “Pythagoras” and other maths areas that I use on a regular basis were mentioned and laughed at. Biology was also cited as being of no use, my wife uses the basics of that subject, along with chemistry, everyday when keeping critically-ill COVID patients alive.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ has a chapter dedicated to the misrepresentation of statistics to make things look better or worse. Also has a lot of information that anti-vaxxers should probably read before expressing their opinion in public as “fact”.
StudentInDebt is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 00:11
  #1202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by StudentInDebt View Post
I’m always disappointed by the mistakes and assumptions “well-educated professional pilots” make about the Australian national curriculum.

Maths is poorly understood in the general population and is it really a surprise when knowledge is derided in our society? The other evening I was listening to a popular music radio DJ asking people to phone in with “useless stuff they learnt at school. “Algebra”, “Pythagoras” and other maths areas that I use on a regular basis were mentioned and laughed at. Biology was also cited as being of no use, my wife uses the basics of that subject, along with chemistry, everyday when keeping critically-ill COVID patients alive.

Dr Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’ has a chapter dedicated to the misrepresentation of statistics to make things look better or worse. Also has a lot of information that anti-vaxxers should probably read before expressing their opinion in public as “fact”.
My apologies, Student; do I have it wrong? I certainly remember being taught the above concept but that was in another century and the curriculum, along with the times, has certainly changed to focus on more important issues since then than ages-old mathematical fundamentals.

I suspect that if you're looking for intelligent comment from the listeners you might be tuned to the wrong station. Good luck with your debt.
Mullah Kintyre is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 02:01
  #1203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 215
Every layman understands what “5 times less” means.

It means that if an event has a 50% chance of happening (e.g. an unvaccinated person catching COVID given a certain exposure scenario), and another event has a 10% chance of happening (e.g. a vaccinated person catching COVID given the same exposure event), then it makes sense to the average person that the first event is 5 times more likely than the second event.

It also makes sense to the average person that the second event is 5 times less likely than the first event.

The fact that a mathematician would never use the latter terminology is irrelevant. A mathematician insists on precision when converting mathematics to language. The average person doesn’t care.

So, in the context of attempting to persuade anti-vaxxers that the vaccine actually does reduce the chance of infection, the use of the phrase “5 times less likely to be infected” is perfectly valid, and will be understood by the intended audience. Whether it is believed is another story.
Derfred is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 04:04
  #1204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Derfred View Post
Every layman understands what “5 times less” means.
It means that if an event has a 50% chance of happening (e.g. an unvaccinated person catching COVID given a certain exposure scenario), and another event has a 10% chance of happening (e.g. a vaccinated person catching COVID given the same exposure event), then it makes sense to the average person that the first event is 5 times more likely than the second event.
It also makes sense to the average person that the second event is 5 times less likely than the first event.
So event A is 50% and event B is 10%.
According to your message, B is 5x A's value more likely to happen than A is likely to happen.
So B = 5A+A = 60%
But that can't be right because A = 50%.

I think if you said A is 5x as likely as B this would be correct. This sort of concept is helpful when managing your own money so I don't see why people resent being correct. Pilots are meant to be good with numbers but maybe the magenta line breed is undermining the need for understanding of fundamentals.

Then you say B is 5 x something less likely to happen than A is likely to happen. Did you mean 5 x A?
Let's see... B = A-5A = 50-(5x50) = -200. Hmmm. Nope, that doesn't work.
Maybe 5 x B!
B = A-5B = 50 - (5x10) = 0. No, that doesn't make any sense either. Maybe Student can help if s/he has been to school since it all changed.

Originally Posted by Derfred View Post
Every layman understands what “5 times less” means................ the use of the phrase “5 times less likely to be infected” is perfectly valid, and will be understood by the intended audience.
I think every layman might think he understands but really doesn't or maybe simply happily agrees with the incorrect interpretation of the masses and that's the world in which we now thanks to the previously-referred to dumbing down. Some people seem happy to live like this. Go with the ignorant flow, believe everything you're told, Newspeak is fine, just take your jab, watch the footy or The Block.
Mullah Kintyre is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 04:48
  #1205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mycenae
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by Mullah Kintyre View Post
. Maybe Student can help if s/he has been to school since it all changed.


I think every layman might think he understands but really doesn't or maybe simply happily agrees with the incorrect interpretation of the masses and that's the world in which we now thanks to the previously-referred to dumbing down.
I left school 25 years ago, I can’t explain it any better than you have with this sentence. Again, I recommend chapter 13 & 14 of “Bad Science” to anyone confused by this point.
StudentInDebt is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 07:52
  #1206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,636
Your so called "new" study is dated 15th January 2021
The study https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...648-4/fulltext is actually dated October 29 2021, so mass vax was a thing. The story referring to the "new study" quotes some other links, one of which is from January 2021. Apologies, I didn't see that one get pasted across.
before mass vaccination had even become a thing.
What difference does mass vaccination make? The study referred to the difference in exposure to vaccinated or unvaccinated persons by vaccinated vs unvaccinated. In the study either all were vaccinated or all were not vaccinated. That was the point.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 08:12
  #1207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,139
I'm saying that under the current privacy laws there has to be a serious legal discussion as to why the CCTV is being recorded in the first place
Which part of the privacy laws? You are assuming rules that do not exist. Australia is a developing country. For proof see our internet speed compared to the rest of the world and our educational ranking.

https://itwire.com/telecoms-and-nbn/...ed-league.html


Last edited by Icarus2001; 25th Nov 2021 at 08:22.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 10:19
  #1208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,227
What difference does mass vaccination make? The study referred to the difference in exposure to vaccinated or unvaccinated persons by vaccinated vs unvaccinated. In the study either all were vaccinated or all were not vaccinated. That was the point.
Mass vaccination is a major factor as the actual large scale data is very different to what they have found. As I stated earlier in NYC where we've had over a year and thousands of deaths, and lots of data on vaccination efficiency they have found the vaccinated subject is 5 times better off than unvaccinated. The CDC has released similar findings.

Now with regard to this study one massive issue with its credibility is this statement under limitations;

Fourth, owing to the age-stratified rollout of the UK vaccination programme, the age of the unvaccinated, delta variant-infected participants was lower than that of vaccinated participants. Thus, age might be a confounding factor in our results and, as discussed, peak viral load was associated with age.
There were fewer unvaccinated females than males (p=0·04) and, as expected from the age-prioritisation of the UK vaccine roll-out, unvaccinated participants infected with the delta variant were significantly younger (p<0·001; appendix p 3).
We know very well that infection rate and severity are significantly linked to age and vulnerability. So in such low cohort numbers such as this study to not even have matching age groups really means the numbers can not be compared accurately. Also the study only focuses on household spread, so not general spread through the community overall. One could expect higher transmission rates within close confines to be much higher especially between two sharing a bed, cleaning and eating facilities. The same as any other virus.

What it does display though that even with the age disparity and other issues the vaccine is still effective at preventing spread, just not foolproof.
43Inches is online now  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 10:52
  #1209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 970
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was View Post

What difference does mass vaccination make? The study referred to the difference in exposure to vaccinated or unvaccinated persons by vaccinated vs unvaccinated. In the study either all were vaccinated or all were not vaccinated. That was the point.
The difference is sample size
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 20:43
  #1210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,076
In the UK they have used age standardized mortality rates (ASMR).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...4september2021

Main Points:
  • Between 2 January and 24 September 2021, the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals.
  • The weekly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving COVID-19 were consistently lower for people who had received two vaccinations compared with one or no vaccinations.
  • ASMRs take into account differences in age structure and population size to allow comparisons between vaccination status groups; however some differences between the groups such as health status may remain and partly explain the differences in ASMRs.


ampclamp is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2021, 22:22
  #1211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,459
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
For proof see our internet speed compared to the rest of the world .

https://itwire.com/telecoms-and-nbn/...ed-league.html
That says we're in the top 25%. Are you saying 75% of the worlds countries are "Developing"??

Also education? We rank 8th out of 225 countries.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2021, 11:42
  #1212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,636
Now with regard to this study one massive issue with its credibility is this statement under limitations;

Quote:
Fourth, owing to the age-stratified rollout of the UK vaccination programme, the age of the unvaccinated, delta variant-infected participants was lower than that of vaccinated participants. Thus, age might be a confounding factor in our results and, as discussed, peak viral load was associated with age.
They do say this immediately after though
However, it is unlikely that the higher SAR observed in the unvaccinated contacts would have been driven by younger age rather than the absence of vaccination and, to our knowledge, there is no published evidence showing increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection with decreasing age.

Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 26th Nov 2021 at 11:57.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 02:47
  #1213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 125
Have the impression you should read more real science papers and watch less Netflix or mainstream media outlets…
And before you get angry with me, see what is happening now everywhere, the vaccinated are also spreading “The Virus” and getting sick as well. Ex Gibraltar 90+ vaxxed, Christmas cancelled…🤷‍♂️
VONKLUFFEN is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2021, 03:52
  #1214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: House
Posts: 64
I wonder how future class actions against employers will go.
sagan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.