And they never did archaic things in the past like requiring masks!
I get you are hurting @flyboy77 , but protesting, denying or declining appropriate action while potentially promoting harmful behaviours or solutions is not the fastest way out of this. In fact your actions may extend the pain!
If you need it resolved quickly, if you want to get back as close to normal as can ever be expected, then get everyone vaccinated who can be vaccinated as soon as possible, get your family vaccinated, get your friends vaccinated and get on with it as quickly as possible while complying with the flattening of the curve and the mitigation strategies!
They got it in 1918 and they didn't need the Interwebs to understand why!
Court was held in open spaces to avoid indoor crowds.
Who the f... are you to tell me what I am thinking?
Most of us write what we think, it's a dead giveaway, but I'll keep in mind for future debates you might be contrary to that!
As I've already responded, the documents you post do not support the conclusions you post, in fact the docs suggest the very opposite of your claims because the data is qualified and so it's context is important. Which I think is partly the point @dodge was making, and which seems quite reasonable.
Nobody is claiming the documents got the math wrong .........................!
The spread of Delta comes after the learnings taken from the original strain, and after the actions taken to mitigate Sars-CoV-2, @dodge was quite right to point out this asymmetry, which is made obvious in the report and influences the conclusions. That important context is easily missed if disparate data points are cherry-picked from across the document.
That kid Alex Porter is unlucky but his bike accident is typical of how carbon fibre or some 3D additive manufactured titanium will fail. This reduced reliability is the price paid for wanting the very lightest parts made from the strongest materials. Weight reduction is always a trade off with strength.
If I had a choice, I'd choose 3D Titanium over Carbon Fibre, as long as the 3D Titanium is made by people who know what they are doing.
I suspect the problem will be a inclusion or void type defect in the build, which has caused a crack to form and the crack then propagates through the body of the part. Titanium tends to not fail so catastrophically you would feel it start to give, bend then snap. Carbon fibre can shatter like glass failing almost explosively.
Down at Deakin near Geelong they have advanced carbon fibre techniques developed for forming car chassis and automotive wheels that are supposed to prevent/reduce sudden catastrophic failures, but I do not know anyone doing this for cycling. Supercars like McLaren, fighter planes and F1 race cars maybe, not even sure it's used for local touring cars the price is too high.
I know CSIRO made a special bike for one of our Olympic Athletes in years gone by, Anna Meares used one in her last campaign, that was titanium 3D printed using a scaffold technique developed by the Victorian Direct Manufacturing Centre, not sure the current Olympic suppliers use or license those techniques, they are also patented.
Oddly, the bike that failed had a rather unusual organic design for a 3D titanium part, some of this comes out of a design method called FEA.
Low confidence in fatality rate, as the numbers are low (they state this). They also have had essentially 6 weeks of high Delta cases against ~14 mnths Alpha data. I would hope that they would be looking at the data impassively and making informed conclusions as they are working in depth with this everyday. Personally, I am pretty OK with taking British Health at their word.
@dodge That's it you're speaking too much sense, it has no place here, get out of the pool!
Thing is, people are going to have their platforms. I recognised something about social media a while ago. Ever noticed, that its almost a giant propaganda machine anyway?
Yes that is one of it's potential features, but it doesn't mean everything is propaganda, and a lot of the really nasty stuff is pretty easy to disprove.
The experts haven't lost their voice entirely, they are just much much harder to hear over the throng of nutbags and lunatics.
btw., I'm not opposed to someone like Flyboy posing questions, in fact we need sceptics and healthy scepticism is how science really works. But science never works by deliberately cherry-picking or misrepresenting the data, in science if you fake it you're f#$%!d!
The crooks who do misrepresent data, even if they have a PhD after their name, aren't scientists!
Just because I didn't highlight the hospitalisation numbers doesn't mean I don't get the difference between mortality and virulence.
What you did or didn't post is irrelevant, it's your original conclusion you post that exposes your confusion.
The falling mortality of the original strains, and the rising case numbers of the Delta strain, would eventually expose the myth of what you persist with if it wasn't for the mitigation steps being taken. The delayed cross over is a consequence of mitigation not in difference to it.
Mitigation steps that included improved understanding of Sars-CoV-2, better treatment regimes, snap lockdowns, wide spread vaccinations, faster contact tracing and better quarantine.
It's interesting to see how the public react to the science when it is communicated fairly conservatively.
We know scientific claims won't be made when they can't be strongly supported, so formal commentary based on early trends will always be conservative, the scientists want more data. Scientists won't make the early crow mistake that the HCQ boosters did. To some degree that leaves scientific and technical reports open to misuse and abuse as we know, however nobody having a rational look at this stuff will disagree with the conservative perspective taken by the scientists.
If the scientists go early they don't have enough data to be confident to the levels they would like, so the naysayers and critics take a cheap shot claiming there isn't enough data to support the conclusions or predictions. If the scientists don't go early they can see people might suffer, the critics will claim they should have been warned.
It's a no win for the scientists, but they persist because they know it is the right thing to do!
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!
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.
You need to means test franking credits and cap them for anyone earning over 80-100k. If you scrap them completely then you will have a lot of self funded retirees qualifying for the pension, dropping their private health insurance and getting health care cards etc. You want to deny the Twiggy Forests etc who earn millions in dividends but not punish the little bloke who earns 40k and uses those franking credits for his health insurance etc and who will become a burden on the pension and health care system.
I agree, but I think the thresholds should be geared to the average wage, so that it scales automatically as the economic environment changes. Also, as part of this I think the Feds need to look at issues like provisional tax. The problem I see is that the sole trader types and tradies can dabble in the share market and have massively variable income from year to year but not be earning that much on average. So if they have a very good year and the thresholds are set too low you can really punish their earnings. Alternatively maybe make these calculations based on an average over a few years.
What do you do when someone like Packer or Rinehart declare an income of $35K, while their wealth doubles and the number of people they employ plummets?
It's interesting to see that Cripps keeps polling in the AFLCA, yet the broadcasters and the fans keep telling everyone how poor he's been, the CheatsFC TV commentary crew almost did an impromptu segment on it!
Playing Murphy in spite of his inability to perform just so he can get to 300 is definitely putting the individual before the club given we're sitting 1 win outside the 8 with 3 to play.
Personally, I think the above statement exposes a prejudice, I'll explain why.
In most games sMurph has played he has been far from our worst, even in several of those partial games when he has come on he had as much influence if not more influence than some that played 4-qtrs. Yet many "fans" seem happy not to give him credit when credit is due.
I thought that there was a danger that perhaps I was being too apologist for sMurph, so I completed a small exercise.
I filtered out his partial game rankings and come up with a ranking for his 2021 season relative to other team mates only based on full games. Based on that measure he ranked 12th on our list of 2021 players. That put him ahead of SoJ, Martin, Fogarty, Gibbons, SPS, Fisher, De Koning, Stocker, Jones, Dow and even Betts as well as a heap of others.
Now I realise different ranking systems will produce different results, but I do not expect any of them to result in him being top of the pile or bottom of the list.