Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: CV and mad panic behaviour (Read 434077 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4155 –
Quote from: LP on
Many people are getting vaccinated too late, they left it to the last minute and as such even after vaccination they have not had enough time to develop a strong enough reaction to the vaccine. It takes about 4 weeks bare minimum for a vaccine dose to work.
I watched an interview with a nurse in the US who said patients being admitted with Covid often beg her for the vaccine but she has to tell them it’s too late for that. Another nurse reported that she has had Covid patients on death’s door who refuse to accept they have Covid (a bit like Trump refusing to accept that he lost to “that guy”).

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4156 –
Quote from: Mav on
Another nurse reported that she has had Covid patients on death’s door who refuse to accept they have Covid.
You know as well as I do, it's really 5G! :o ;D
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4158 –
Cue the caterwauling ... looks like sports events will require proof of vaccinations and private businesses will be able to exclude the non-vaccinated as well. Not yet, but later on this year maybe. About bloody time! We should hire Arnold Swartznegger to do an advert telling the wankers who will bog on about their right to choose that “You have the right to die!”

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4159 –
Interesting that Warne was fully vaccinated and still got Covid.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4160 –
Quote from: capcom on
Interesting that Warne was fully vaccinated and still got Covid.

The big question is... how crook did he get? Vaccinations won't necessarily prevent getting Covid, their primary task as I understand it, is preventing life threatening illness.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4161 –
Agree @Baggers ... won't know for a while as it was o'nite news at 5 a.m. today.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4164 –
Quote from: capcom on
Agree @Baggers ... won't know for a while as it was o'nite news at 5 a.m. today.

Just read the article in the HUN with Warney reporting on his symptoms - mild. As he is in England he is seeing first hand the terrible impact and is a strong advocate for the 'double jab'. He got the Pfizer.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4165 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
What story do you assert they tell?

Honest question.  

Not an assertion, but rather some easily drawn conclusions drawn from Government sourced empirical data.

Table 4 - the rate of death from the Alpha (UK) strain is more than 5 times the rate of death from Delta (Indian). Attachment 2.

              (and it would appear this is independent of any vaccine 'effect' looking at the previous reports)

Conclusion: Delta is far less virulent (which fits with virology 100).

Table 6 - Secondary attack rates (transmission in a more scary way) - Alpha 10.2%, 5.6% (household, non household)

              Delta 11.0, 5.8% - that is, same same as Alpha.

Conclusion: Delta is pretty much on a par with Alpha in terms of transmissability - despite the BS from many quarters. Which fits with what didn't happen with the Delta outbreak in Melbourne.

Table 5 - the real stand out.

            (see attachment 1 for a snippet)

The table shows 121,402 cases of Delta of the unvaccinated. 165 have sadly died. 0.1% of cases.

The table also shows 28,773 Delta cases in the fully vaccinated, 224 people sadly died. 0.8% of cases.

Conclusion: The PHE data shows that people who have received two doses of a CV19 vaccine have a 507% higher chance of dying due to the Delta variant than people who are unvaccinated.

Do your best LP.

And here's the laughable Burnet report Scomo and the Premiers plan to use to justify ongoing lockdowns....i'll comment more later (yet to read it in full) but this one chart caught my eye.

Risk benefit for the u50s, arguably even u60s??

https://www.burnet.edu.au/system/asset/file/4835/Burnet_Institute_Long-term_COVID-19_control_requires_a_combination_of_high_vaccination_and_intermittent_control_measures.pdf
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4166 –
There is nothing in the data tables linked in the original document that supports Flyboy's conclusions, readers can investigate this on their own if they really want to take it further.

Flyboy has confused lethality with virulence.

Some of the figures Flyboy wants to misuse are percentages of percentages, and have to be judged relative to the duration/appearance of both the original and Delta strains. In effect Flyboy has published conclusions without regard to the underlying meaning of the figures.

The 2nd Burnet document is a simulation/model of what Long Term COVID might be like under high vaccination rates and various other mitigation schemes. The proportion of cases has to be measured relative to the percentage of the population, in this case if as many as 75% of people were vaccinated and 25% of people were not! When that consideration is made the simulation/model figures suggest the exact opposite of Flyboy's conclusions. Flyboy's conclusions of course contradict the documents own conclusions which are summarised on the very first page.

Severe COVID-19 is severe COVID-19, vaccination reduces your chance of getting severe COVID-19, but if you get severe COVID-19 it may not matter whether you have been vaccinated or not, you could just be misfortunate enough to be in the group the vaccines do not really work for. The true measure of this simulation/model is relative to the expected populations of people in each selected category.

As an aside;
Death and infection rates are a consequence of many factors, simple surveys and head counts that do not offer age or social demographics do not paint the full picture. It looks like with the spread of Delta reinfection rates are rising, the original strain is not providing strong immunity to the Delta strain, but you can't kill the vulnerable twice!

However, Delta is proving lethal in younger demographics.

Many vulnerable, even some who are double vaccinated and vulnerable, or perhaps those who become complacent will continue succumb to both the original strain and Delta. Why? Because vaccination does provide 100% immunity, nobody claimed vaccination had 100% efficacy, nobody has ever claimed that it's only a criticism levelled by those wishing to create certain uncertainty.
The Force Awakens!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4167 –
Listen to me only says LP, I know better.

(when clearly you don't).

Ignore the empirical data, rely on the models LP says (because they're far more scary). Yeah, good one.

The conclusions I drew could be reached by any switched on 8yo doing a comprehension test.

Very charitable of you to let others "take it further".

Such magnanimity!
Finals, then 4 in a row!
 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4168 –
Quote
However, Delta is proving lethal in younger demographics.

An LP special.

In Australia, 13 dead, the youngest was that 38yo lady (who may well have had one shot, the NSW authorities won't confirm or deny).

In the UK, back to the recent report.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

Table 4 again (page 14 for LP who can't find it seemingly):

Alpha deaths under 50 - 66 deaths or 0.1%

Delta? u50 - 45 or 0.0%

(ok, 0.02% if you go to 2dp).

Keep trying LP.

Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour

Reply #4169 –
Quote from: flyboy77 on
An LP special.
There is no argument to have, there is nothing in the document that supports your conclusions.

In my opinion your hope is to influence people with a drive-by attack, it is a pretty poor ethic because to work it has to assume the forum's members are either too lazy, too stupid or don't care enough to look into and understand the lengthy documents you link. So in that context you can magically quote isolated figures and we will support your conclusions through shear volume or apathy without question.

I don't think our forum associates are stupid or lazy, they are more than capable of reading those documents and coming to their own conclusions, so I don't have the need to spell out here why each and every point you make is spurious. In many cases the claims you have made are so spurious they can be disproved with only a cursory glance, some documents contradict or disprove your hypothesis in the opening summary!

In effect you're just throwing darts, cherry-picking random figures that you think can support your case. You're the boy who cried wolf and the sad thing is even if you do eventually find something credible nobody will believe you, such a waste!
The Force Awakens!