|
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 10968318)
No increase in suicide rate so far. Probably attributable to jobkeeper.
No real change in Medicare and PBS payouts from 19 to 20, after a short decrease in March/April, suggesting the same amount of medical services were being accessed in 2020 as 2019. USA and Europe took a bigger financial hit, due to the pandemic currently raging through those places. All in all Australia's lock it out policy has done the best job. A CFR of 2% (disregarding health system pressures, and long term complications) is actually really bad. Australia has a higher obesity rate than Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and a higher or comparable smoking rate than the UK, Sweden, Chile, Ireland which have all been hammered by the pandemic. Which suggests similar infection and death rates would present here if we "just learnt to live with it". Secondly, our financial hit has been huge. Maybe big corporations and large companies are weathering things, just, but try telling your theory of “it’s not too bad here” to the tens of thousands of businesses that have gone to the wall. The real impact of COVID is yet to be seen. We are still in the early days of this maelstrom. The full impact is on its way. |
We are still in the early days of this maelstrom. The full impact is on its way. It’s going to be unpalatable to many but eventually we will be best served by coming to terms with being the quarry and paddock for 1.7 billion eager customers. Put it to the voters. |
Originally Posted by stickshaken
(Post 10968704)
Paragraph377-One thing you forgot was the requirement for 1000’s more solicitors.
There will be mass class actions and law suit‘s before this is all over. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 10968617)
You cherry pick what suits you in your response. Firstly, quoting Government published statistics is akin to believing we have reptilians living amongst us. Anyone believing the Government has already been fooled.
Reminds me of this: https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7dd2d8f4b.jpeg |
Frank Swain might want to remember he who pays the piper calls the tune, which has becomes a bit of an issue in more recent times. You only need to look at all the recanting so-called scientists did when Jeffry Epstein died and all their funding dried up.
|
Oh no so now all the “so called scientific experts” are on the pay check of the globalist paedophile cult! Please enlighten us how this is linked to pizzagate, Q-Anon and the great reset, and how Trump will save us from it all.....
|
...and the fred publics think airline pilots are intelligent!!!!!
|
Oh no so now all the “so called scientific experts” are on the pay check of the globalist paedophile cult! Please enlighten us how this is linked to pizzagate, Q-Anon and the great reset, and how Trump will save us from it all..... I'm sure a few large corporations have spun research one way or another to suit their ends as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/b...-eugenics.html https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...cience-he-died |
Positive cases arriving with the Tennis people.... here we go again!!!!
|
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10968158)
The tennis players are here because of a long standing agreement and three months of very detailed planning (I was advised by someone who has a part in it) and a comprehensive organisational plan. When each Victorian can provide the same undertakings and level of detail, they can get special treatment too..
Some of you still don't understand..... The moral of the story is don't travel unless you have to, have backup plans, listen to the news hourly and be prepared to move fast. Moral of the story is unless you’re big business, a celebrity, a sportsperson or Uber rich you’ll do what the overlords say not what they do. Two coronavirus cases reportedly confirmed on Australian Open chartered flight into Melbourne |
|
neville_nobody (and others)
As asked before, what verifiable information do you offer in place of published scientific research? You seem to omitting the effect of ‘peer review’ from your attempt at disparagement of scientific research (and government statistics). I would have been very surprised (we’ll never know now) if research sponsored by Epstein would have been published in a recognised scientific journal. Peer review culls most of the ‘not proven‘/‘not verifiable‘/‘not repeatable’ from publication and is independent of the money. If you’ve been through academic ‘peer review’ you’ll understand just what a blood sport it can be. There is generally more to be gained by proving some research has issues than the actual research itself. |
As asked before, what verifiable information do you offer in place of published scientific research? You seem to omitting the effect of ‘peer review’ from your attempt at disparagement of scientific research (and government statistics). I would have been very surprised (we’ll never know now) if research sponsored by Epstein would have been published in a recognised scientific journal. Peer review culls most of the ‘not proven‘/‘not verifiable‘/‘not repeatable’ from publication and is independent of the money. If you’ve been through academic ‘peer review’ you’ll understand just what a blood sport it can be. There is generally more to be gained by proving some research has issues than the actual research itself. |
Originally Posted by layman
(Post 10968799)
neville_nobody (and others)
As asked before, what verifiable information do you offer in place of published scientific research? You seem to omitting the effect of ‘peer review’ from your attempt at disparagement of scientific research (and government statistics). I would have been very surprised (we’ll never know now) if research sponsored by Epstein would have been published in a recognised scientific journal. Peer review culls most of the ‘not proven‘/‘not verifiable‘/‘not repeatable’ from publication and is independent of the money. If you’ve been through academic ‘peer review’ you’ll understand just what a blood sport it can be. There is generally more to be gained by proving some research has issues than the actual research itself. |
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10968829)
Don't mistake "peer review" as any sort of gold standard. It does not guarantee that the research is the truth
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
(Post 10968818)
Not everything is black and white and not all scientific research or government data is 100% honest.
and it does not guarantee that vested interests are not at work I understand the hardships plenty in this industry are facing. That's why we need to listen to the medical experts and follow their advice (social distancing, remote quarantining, mass uptake of the vaccine) in order to get back to normal as soon as safely possible. |
Dre, you seem to live in a fantasy land where everything the government says (and supported by their paid “expert” lap dogs) is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
there are as many studies in support of and against lockdowns. There is no consensus. what is clear is this is a political wet dream and these chief medical officers are basking in their glory of being important rule makers for the only time in their lives. They don’t want this to end. |
When you are claiming, without the relevant medical qualifications, that the scientific derived consensus on this pandemic is incorrect you had better provide some very, very solid evidence and be prepared to have it stand up to massive amounts of scrutiny. Otherwise you really are just sprouting conspiracy theories. Royal Society of Medicine Nature NY Times Science Alert Wikipedia Etc etc. |
Mr Dre, why don’t you come out and support the WHO’s October 2020 statement that lockdowns shouldn’t be the only option adopted? It would seem Jeannette Young and Daniel Andrews haven’t been listening. And the QLD Premier along with lapdog Young shut down a city of 2.2m people for 3 days due to 1 solitary case.
Oh well, I guess some people on here are so scared and have so much of fear of a virus that they are prepared to be brainwashed by the Government establishments who lie and deceive with every word they speak. Some peoples comfort blanket is strange indeed. |
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
(Post 10968854)
I wasn't claiming that at all. I was rebutting the comment that peer review is the be all and end all of the argument.
Yes, there are some papers and articles published saying that lockdowns don't work, or more accurately say that current lockdown measures should be altered. However, there is a lot, and I mean a lot, of other articles, statements, evidence and authoritative opinion by far more scientists and medical experts saying they do work, and have produced identifiable results. So what I say is that if the vast bulk of epidemiologists and public health experts aren't convinced by or entertaining this alternate opinion out there then why should I? Why should anyone posting here, unless they have a secret double life as an epidemiologist? Why do some without any authority to tell scientists they're wrong continue to do it? It has a psychological basis. Conspiracy theorists have freed themselves from the lies of The Establishment, the Deep State, the Mainstream “Fake-News” Media. They, and their robust group of like-minded science-deniers, are the only ones who know the real truth. They know something — a lot of things, actually — that the rest of us don’t. They laugh at what fools we are for falling prey to obvious political agendas of scientists who are, after all, notorious for making baseless claims, duh. Everyone who does not share their ideas is a gullible idiot. There is nothing to be done to dissuade these self-professed experts of their rightness. The fact that scientists live and work by a code that requires them to revise their hypotheses when new data is presented only confirms their belief. Scientists are sometimes wrong, but they, the conspiracy theorists, have always been right. And every new news article, every new study, every new expert opinion, only serves as further evidence that the world is against them. |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 10968881)
Mr Dre, why don’t you come out and support the WHO’s October 2020 statement that lockdowns shouldn’t be the only option adopted?
WHO is right: lockdowns should be short and sharp. Here are 4 other essential COVID-19 strategies No, the WHO Didn’t Change Its Lockdown Stance or ‘Admit’ Trump Was Right My biggest concern is with the "this virus is no worse than the flu, let's just get back to how things were before ASAP" types though. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.