|
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
(Post 11084118)
I did check it out, very interesting. Perhaps you should check this out: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/202...lence-of-evil/
Personally I don't believe or disbelieve either stats, I simply don't know. All I do know is that I don't feel particularly threatened by "the virus". I don't know why that is either, its just the way it is. When Vic was in it's hour of need 4 of our girls volunteered to help, Because procedure and PPE was seriously flawed, something they realised the moment they went on duty, all 4 came home infected, 12 months on, none of them can say they are restored to perfect precovid health, Breathlessness for no apparent reason, bruising that comes and goes in the legs, arms and hands, for apparently no reason. loss of sensation, numbness. Will they volunteer again, hell no, if a more severe strain emerges that is likely to overwhelm the health system, we are bugging out. These girls are professionals not scared easily, so that's a big deal coming from them. |
When Vic was in it's hour of need 4 of our girls volunteered to help, Because procedure and PPE was seriously flawed, something they realised the moment they went on duty, all 4 came home infected, 12 months on, none of them can say they are restored to perfect precovid health, Breathlessness for no apparent reason, bruising that comes and goes in the legs, arms and hands, for apparently no reason. loss of sensation, numbness. One thing to note; I have mates in the US and UK, not once have I heard the same debate from there as it is here. They all went and got whatever vaccine was being offered and showed the vaccine slip like a badge of honor afterwards. None of them make light of the death rate or that its just "like the flu". As said above I think Australians again being in the lucky country have no real idea what its like if it gets loose, out of sight, make stuff up. |
I just got home from visiting my mother. On the way back home, I was delayed by a “convoy” of anti vax protest cars blocking a 3 lane, 70 Kph highway by driving at 20 kph in all lanes. Their cars were covered in anti vax slogans.. including my favourite ..5G kills.
With these morons around, we have no hope. |
Originally Posted by Chronic Snoozer
(Post 11084087)
That would be 50% higher would it not?
|
DOCTOR DRE:
You may be interested to know that I have read most of your posts and clicked through most of your links. I reiterate, I don't know. Clearly you do. You give the impression you know everything about this Covid thing. I am a simple pilot on a pilots forum and I now bow out of this discussion. I am not interested in a "battle of the links" either and will post no more on this thread .But before I leave, I will correct my 99.9% comment: If you are fit and well with no underlying medical conditions I tend to believe you have a 99.9% chance of survival of this thing. (Perhaps I do believe something :-) Also Doc: Nowhere, have I stated I am an anti vaxer, nowhere. This is just another "I know" viewpoint of yours and it is simply not true. Enjoy your superiority. |
Originally Posted by SOPS
(Post 11084153)
I just got home from visiting my mother. On the way back home, I was delayed by a “convoy” of anti vax protest cars blocking a 3 lane, 70 Kph highway by driving at 20 kph in all lanes. Their cars were covered in anti vax slogans.. including my favourite ..5G kills.
With these morons around, we have no hope. |
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob
(Post 11084158)
If you are fit and well with no underlying medical conditions I tend to believe you have a 99.9% chance of survival of this thing. (Perhaps I do believe something :-)
Neil deGrasse Tyson |
Originally Posted by SOPS
(Post 11084153)
With these morons around, we have no hope.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bda51c631.jpeg |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084093)
And there we have it!
Someone made a decision based on cost. Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccines had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real. Viral vector vaccines, on the hand, were a proven commodity. So, in what at the time looked like a prudent, low-medium risk decision the Australian government initially committed to a viral vector vaccine - AstraZeneca - and a molecular clamp technology vaccine - the University of Queensland v451- that they knew could both be manufactured here. Of course, in the this pile-on mentality to just sh^tcan the government at every turn, what's also lost is that the initial decisions taken by the United States and the EU on vaccine acquisition were heavily biased towards which vaccine? AstraZeneca! Why? Probably the same reason - lower delivery risk. The Yanks ordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca essentially right out of the blocks. Their commitment to Pfizer at that stage was around one third of that, 100 million doses.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084093)
But if only that someone had realised that the real costs of that decision would be vastly more than chump change like the "$100 million" to which you referred.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084093)
From January this year, when it still wasn't a race:Quote:
Clinical trials for both vaccines have shown they’re broadly safe. In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID. The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084093)
Aren't Australians worth the better vaccine?
|
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 11084183)
No, they likely did not. When the Australian government placed its order for AstraZeneca nobody knew what the delivered cost of any of the vaccines was going to be.
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccine had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real. Viral vector vaccines, on the hand, were a proven commodity. So, in what at the time looked like a prudent, low-medium risk decision the Australian government initially committed to a viral vector vaccine - AstraZeneca - and a molecular clamp technology vaccine - the University of Queensland v451- that they knew could both be manufactured here. Of course, in the this pile-on mentality to just sh^tcan the government at every turn, what's also lost is that the initial decisions taken by the United States and the EU on vaccine acquisition were heavily biased towards which vaccine? AstraZeneca! Why? Probably the same reason - lower delivery risk. The Yanks ordered 300 million doses of AstraZeneca essentially right out of the blocks. Their commitment to Pfizer at that stage was around one third of that, 100 million doses. Yes, and 'if only' the fox hadn't stopped to scratch itself it would have caught the rabbit. If only. Wrong measure of efficacy! Stage III trial vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection is the wrong measure for comparing vaccines largely because the prevailing conditions in which the trials are conducted vary. The vaccine efficacies that count from a public health perspective are efficacy against hospitalisation, efficacy against ICU admissions and efficacy against deaths. On those measures, AstraZeneca and Pfizer were, and still are, line ball. At the time, both AstraZeneca and Pfizer were line ball on key efficacy measures. The latter was by then known to be eight times the cost of the former. Additionally, at that time Pfizer was failing to hit its production and delivery targets such that the EU was embargoing AstraZeneca to make up the shortfalls. You tell me which one you'd be opting for at that time. Seems to me that your comments just smack 'slightly' of apologetics for what has effectively been on several criteria one of the worst governments we've had in Canberra - Robodebt, millions spent locking up 2 adults and 2 children, couldn't run a census competently when every other government has managed it ok for the preceding 114 years, my favourite was in the Abbott era he set up a committee to see how the Commonwealth could save money and it was abandoned after spending $M's more than budgeted, NBN a complete waste of money, spent more on copper to replace copper when fibre was a fraction of the cost, you couldn't write this stuff and have it accepted as not exaggerated for an episode of Yes Prime Minister.... why should the vaccine roll out be any different... and that's before we get into the absolute stacking of the AAT and mean legislation to attack charities that don't say nice things about the government as well as millions spent to try and discredit political oponent and sports and carpark rorts.... |
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
(Post 11084190)
Curious that you refer to speaking against the Federal Government's efforts to be a "pile on" yet you write dismissive commentary about the Victorian Government "of sign me up to CCP belt and road fame".
Unless Chairman Dan, of sign me up for CCP Belt and Road Initiative fame, makes it to the Federal Treasury benches the likelihood of that happening is essentially zero. It simply is not going to happen under a Coalition government given the current and foreseeable relationship with China.
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
(Post 11084190)
Seems to me that your comments just smack 'slightly' of apologetics for what has effectively been on several criteria one of the worst governments we've had in Canberra - Robodebt, millions spent locking up 2 adults and 2 children, couldn't run a census competently when every other government has managed it ok for the preceding 114 years, my favourite was in the Abbott era he set up a committee to see how the Commonwealth could save money and it was abandoned after spending $M's more than budgeted, NBN a complete waste of money, spent more on copper to replace copper when fibre was a fraction of the cost, you couldn't write this stuff and have it accepted as not exaggerated for an episode of Yes Prime Minister.... why should the vaccine roll out be any different... and that's before we get into the absolute stacking of the AAT and mean legislation to attack charities that don't say nice things about the government as well as millions spent to try and discredit political oponent and sports and carpark rorts....
|
Just watching the vision of the protests in Sydney. Mostly no masks.. some moron punching a Police Horse.
Just like the Gold Standard Girl told us.. we do it different in NSW. I can’t wait to see the spread from this. |
Are we not keeping up with the scientific guidance? Outdoor transmission is not a thing anymore. Outdoor masking is only recommended in very crowded situations. (I guess this march qualifies.)
NYTimes special report on exaggerated outdoor transmission |
Originally Posted by mattyj
(Post 11084449)
Are we not keeping up with the scientific guidance? Outdoor transmission is not a thing anymore. Outdoor masking is only recommended in very crowded situations. (I guess this march qualifies.)
NYTimes special report on exaggerated outdoor transmission If that was the case they’d be allowing home quarantine for vaccinated travellers from low case countries (not just planning a trial). Or they would have recognised that placing arrivals in a hotel room with windows that don’t open and recirculating air is a bad idea. Because it’s an airborne virus…. How many cases resulted from the various Victorian protests last year? Pretty sure it was none. How many cases resulted from the various “infected persons” travelling on domestic flights? Pretty sure it was none. The vast majority of cases are from spread between family members at home. Even most of the initial “fleeting contacts” would probably be prevented by enforcing masks indoors ALL THE TIME, not just when there’s an outbreak. After all, the risk today, is exactly the same as it was last year in Australia, because of the incredibly low vaccination rates. The risk of spreading the virus is still high. |
That last post is the only post that remotely makes sense. Australia has f$&ked it up big time and now we will pay the price for the next 50yrs.
On the upside I was listening to 2GB money show yesterday and they were talking about the share market this guy named 3 shares that he recommended to buy as a sure return on investment. 1 of those three were QF surprisingly. They closed at $4.55 on Friday they could go further down but he seemed to think it’s not if, but when and they will go above $5.00 when all is said and done with this border closure. He estimated you could make up to 25%. |
Originally Posted by SHVC
(Post 11084463)
That last post is the only post that remotely makes sense. Australia has f$&ked it up big time and now we will pay the price for the next 50yrs.
On the upside I was listening to 2GB money show yesterday and they were talking about the share market this guy named 3 shares that he recommended to buy as a sure return on investment. 1 of those three were QF surprisingly. They closed at $4.55 on Friday they could go further down but he seemed to think it’s not if, but when and they will go above $5.00 when all is said and done with this border closure. He estimated you could make up to 25%. |
Speaking of upsides, in great news for the future demographics of the U.S., a Marist/Fox poll reports that over 80% of Biden voters have been vaccinated, compared with around 50% of Trump voters.
|
Originally Posted by Green.Dot
(Post 11084173)
Oh yes, a classy bunch indeed- these Aussie heroes were also in Brissy today. When we open up and they want a hospital bed let’s tell them to get pf^cked.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bda51c631.jpeg Who cares if they dont get vaccinated,they have a choice & so do the many business owners who will soon be deciding who is & who isnt welcome to enter their premises. Maybe the brain will engage when 1 of them or 1 of their family is on a ventilator. |
Originally Posted by dr dre
(Post 11084140)
Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site.
Rubbish and rubbish Nonsense and bulldust Not unusual Try again Already done At 1 of the pressers the other day an answer was given to a journalist & it was along the lines of- If you have any concerns or questions,talk to your gp,ignore the different day different conspiracy theory been given by the talkback radio segments & the front page headlines of the newspaper trying to increase sales. |
I dips me lid, Mick. You are a master of the language.
No, they likely did not [take cost of the vaccines into account]. When the Australian government placed its order for AstraZeneca nobody knew what the delivered cost of any of the vaccines was going to be. Wrong measure of efficacy! Clinical trials for both vaccines have shown they’re broadly safe. In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID. The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year. [P]eople don’t generally judge whether they’ll receive a vaccine based on its effectiveness alone. We know from talking to the community that many factors influence motivation, especially perceived risk and severity of infection, and confidence in the safety of the vaccine. Since that article was written, there have been the deaths through blood clotting after AZ jabs and the changing 'goal posts' around age groups. (Who knew that viruses discriminate on the basis of neat 10 year age groups?) But let's assume the UNSW School of Population Health used "the wrong measure of efficacy" and we can produce solid gold, unassailable data now, to show that the risks mitigated by getting, and the rewards of everyone getting, an AZ jab far outweigh the consequences of not. The problem is that the perception of many in the population is that Pfizer is better and safer than AZ. And, as Scotty from Marketing knows better than just about everyone else on the planet, in politics (as with aviation safety), perception is reality. Best to get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer inbound, ASAP. |
Originally Posted by blubak
(Post 11084481)
Bet you can find photos of these idiots protesting against whatever they can find to protest against.
Who cares if they dont get vaccinated,they have a choice & so do the many business owners who will soon be deciding who is & who isnt welcome to enter their premises. Maybe the brain will engage when 1 of them or 1 of their family is on a ventilator. Just like that vegan activist who has been causing trouble at KFCs across the country. Makes all the socials, news sites, 6pm news. Turns out she is a Instagram model with a few hundred thousand followers. Her following has soared since she started her public protests. |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 11084183)
Moreover - and this seems to be lost on many - coming into the pandemic, despite 25 years of trying no pharmaceutical company had ever produced an mRNA vaccine. None, nobody, zilch, zero. mRNA vaccine had been spruiked as a concept for years - a good mate of mine did his PhD thesis on them back in the mid-1990s - but the concept had never been made real.
Insofar as the AZ vaccine, AIUI, blood clots were never considered to be a problem in the trials, until they were found during the rollout of the Scandinavian vaccination program. And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. It could almost be the plot for a sequel of I am Legend... should things go pear-shaped in later years... For the actual clotting syndrome, TTS, 've had a - fairly brief - look at the TGA and other websites and cannot seem to find if this is a one-off issue, or TTS can cause ongoing complications that will require something like ongoing anticoagulant treatments following the diagnosis. Anyone shed any light on long-term treatment for TTS should you develop it? |
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post Another day, another bunch of lies to debunk spread by the anti-vaxxers that have infected this site. It also confirms that the drug manufacturers can't be sued for side effects. |
Originally Posted by KRviator
(Post 11084497)
Insofar as the AZ vaccine, AIUI, blood clots were never considered to be a problem in the trials, until they were found during the rollout of the Scandinavian vaccination program. And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. It could almost be the plot for a sequel of I am Legend... should things go pear-shaped in later years...
|
Originally Posted by KRviator
(Post 11084497)
On the contrary, I don't think it's been lost on as many as you think. As you've said, this pandemic is the proof-of-concept for this style of vaccine delivery. Despite a quarter of a century of trying, they couldn't do it, then suddenly in response to Covid, they can.
And that's what concerns a lot of intelligent people who have been slapped with the anti-vaxxer tab, both here and elsewhere, they don't feel the need to be guinea pigs for this kind of vaccine delivery tech until longer term results are in. For the actual clotting syndrome, TTS, 've had a - fairly brief - look at the TGA and other websites and cannot seem to find if this is a one-off issue, or TTS can cause ongoing complications that will require something like ongoing anticoagulant treatments following the diagnosis. Anyone shed any light on long-term treatment for TTS should you develop it? |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084486)
But let's assume the UNSW School of Population Health used "the wrong measure of efficacy" ...
A candidate vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 might act against infection, disease, or transmission, and a vaccine capable of reducing any of these elements could contribute to disease control. However, the most important efficacy endpoint, protection against severe disease and death, is difficult to assess in phase 3 clinical trials. From a public health perspective hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths are what you want a vaccine to prevent or minimise because those are the factors that burden the health system. That is why those efficacy measures are far more important and why simply focussing on efficacy with regards to symptomatic transmission (which is subject to variation depending on when and where the Stage III trial was conducted) is the wrong measure. |
If you want details on each Vax go to the WHO website, or better still ask your GP. Don't folly around with local studies and in process research. Reading incomplete and study in progress data leads you to information that could be tainted by financial or ideological bias, and without a full medical background you will most likely misconstrue the information and come to some weird conclusions that were never the intent, hence half the comments on this page.
Fact is no medicine is completely safe, Astro Zeneca has a morbidity rate of about 1 in 250,000 vs the 2 in 100 rate of death for the virus it protects against. MMR vaccine given to children has a seizure rate of 1 in 3000 under 7 years old and is still advised to be administered at 12-15 months. In medical terms doctors the death rate has to be below 1 in 10,000 for it to be a worry, and of course much less than the condition it protects against. In terms of efficacy, the Pfizer vaccine protects 94.5% of people from developing COVID. The AstraZeneca shot protects 70% of people on average — still pretty good and on par with the protection given by a flu vaccine in a good year. AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating, which IMO is too low, however this will still protect you from the most serious effects of the virus should you get it. So like the WHO advise, take whatever approved vaccine is available as this could save your life/health in the short term. You can always back up and take the next version later to boost your immunity. If you are worried about the side effects of AZ, isolate and stay out of the community until you can get the Pf and talk to your GP. My GP is relatively young and has taken AZ, his only worry is the efficacy holding up over time. |
I'm always chuffed when you duck the substance of my posts, Mick.
So, the UNSW School of Population Health is definitely incompetent. How does that change the validity of my conclusion about the "perception" of "safety" of the Pfizer v AZ? |
I must not understand this Sydney lockdown properly. There is now a positive case that flew on a flight from Sydney to Ballina. ( amongst an ever increasing number of exposure sights).
Can someone explain to me, if you are in lockdown, why are you on a flight to Ballina?! |
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11084526)
AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating ...
As this diagram illustrates there are multiple points at which efficacy can be measured; some are more important than others. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e26957d54b.jpg Source: What defines an efficacious COVID-19 vaccine? A review of the challenges assessing the clinical efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Hodgson et al |
AZ at present has a 63% efficacy rating ... What is your source for that please? That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom; The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084527)
I'm always chuffed when you duck the substance of my posts, Mick.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084527)
So, the UNSW School of Population is definitely incompetent.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084527)
How does that change the validity of my conclusion about the "perception" of "safety" of the Pfizer v AZ?
You'll get no arguments from me that thanks to a variety of factors, not the least of whom being the future Governor of Queensland, AstraZeneca has been pretty well trashed in the court of public opinion. |
The substance of my post is that one of the primary causes of 'vaccine hesitancy' in Australia is that Pfizer is perceived to be better [has better efficacy] and safer [not as high a risk of bad side-effects] compared with AZ, and no amount of numbers you cite will change that, even if the numbers are correct.
And I don't see the point of your assertion that I used a 'nonsense line'. If, as you say, the UNSW School of Population Health has used the wrong measure of efficacy in numbers that it has published, it follows that the UNSW School of Population Health is incompetent (and contributing to misconceptions). Oh... And better get sh*t tonnes of Pfizer, ASAP. |
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11084533)
https://www.who.int/news-room/featur...u-need-to-know
That's the WHO rundown on it, under how effective it towards the bottom; It does say longer dose intervals increase that but does not specify by how much. There have been subsequent studies posted, such as this one out of the UK, showing Pfizer and AstraZeneca as providing similar levels of protection against both symptomatic infection (not a critical measure) and hospitalisation. That UK study is instructive in that it shows Pfizer and AstraZeneca side-by-side in a high risk population (age 70 and over) during a period of medium-high exposure risk (December 2020 - January 2021). But, at the end of the day, you do you. |
The substance of my post is that one of the primary causes of 'vaccine hesitancy' in Australia is that Pfizer is perceived to be better [has better efficacy] and safer [not as high a risk of bad side-effects] compared with AZ, and no amount of numbers you cite will change that, even if the numbers are correct. That hasn't been updated since mid-April. |
Aged 70 and over...
|
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 11084543)
Aged 70 and over...
Participants 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System. |
Originally Posted by 43Inches
(Post 11084542)
It's only updated on firm evidence, not from preliminary studies,
But, you do you. |
Originally Posted by SOPS
(Post 11084531)
Can someone explain to me, if you are in lockdown, why are you on a flight to Ballina?!
Whether they were legit is another question. |
That BMJ Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines ... paper is not a 'preliminary study'. It's an International Committee of Medical Journal Editors peer reviewed case-control study. But, you do you. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.