-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Where do you read that? This from the office of National Statistics.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights - Office for National Statistics
The latest data and trends about the coronavirus (COVID-18) pandemic from the Office for National Statistics and other sources.
www.ons.gov.uk
Can't see how there could be more people with covid who are vaccinated than not vaccinated given the below statistics? No matter if single dosed or double dosed you are less likely to test positive in any of those cases.
| Figure 1: Characteristics of people associated with being more or less likely to test positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) in the fortnight ending 6 November 2021 | ||||
| Estimated likelihood of testing positive for coronavirus on nose and throat swabs by screened characteristic, UK, 24 October to 6 November 2021 | ||||
| Screening characteristic | Category | Estimated likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 (odds ratio) | Lower 95% confidence interval | Upper 95% confidence interval |
| Vaccination status | Not vaccinated (Reference) | 1 | - | - |
| 1 dose, from 21 days prior to 21 days after vaccination | 0.59 | 0.47 | 0.74 | |
| 1 dose, more than 21 days ago | 0.46 | 0.37 | 0.56 | |
| 2 doses, Moderna, more than 14 days ago | 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.60 | |
| 2 doses, AstraZeneca, 15 to 90 days ago | 0.61 | 0.29 | 1.17 | |
| 2 doses, AstraZeneca, 91 to 180 days ago | 0.66 | 0.53 | 0.83 | |
| 2 doses, AstraZeneca, more than 180 days ago | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.79 | |
| 2 doses, Pfizer, 15 to 90 days ago | 0.22 | 0.15 | 0.32 | |
| 2 doses, Pfizer, 91 to 180 days ago | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.51 | |
| 2 doses, Pfizer, more than 180 days ago | 0.48 | 0.37 | 0.63 | |
| 3 doses, more than 14 days ago | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.28 |
Yeah, he does state that occasionally in his vids, but going by the comments it's clear most of the fan-base still think he's a medical doctor/research scientist. Meanwhile, this actual medical research scientist has been calling out some of the most prevalent Ivermectin myths propagated by the likes of Campbell.
How would you feel about it being legal to promote intake of known poisons as the counter thought process?
I.e. Legalize promoting things that kill you (e.g.. cyanide) vs making illegal promoting information that persuades you to not take something that prevents you from dying.
I see this as the same thing. Ie preventing a helpful action is the same as promoting a harmful action. Killing by inaction is same outcome so same thing to me.
Clearly a moneymaker for Pfizer to have more people get the jab. So would they do this without that incentive…. Probably not.
This is the table from the UK document I cited. Maybe I am reading it wrong. I read it as people in ages 30 plus a greater percentage of vaccinated people get infected than unvaccinated.
Thanks Roar. I am guessing you didn't watch the video.
What are your thoughts about lying about safety data which leads to tens of thousands of deaths. Is that criminal?
Also is that 'misinformation'?
Its a weird table and a weird set of data.
In the same article they state:
"An analysis from the ONS Community Infection Survey found that contacts of vaccinated index cases had around 65 to 80% reduced odds of testing positive with the Alpha variant and 35 to 65% reduced odds of testing positive with the Delta variant compare to contacts of unvaccinated index cases (18)."
So they say transmission risk reduces between 35-65% with Delta, yet the data for those weeks shows otherwise. My guess, it has to do with those persons who are unvaccinated, potentially have a lower will to be tested for Covid, or those that are unvaccinated come into contact with fewer people (ie. they choose because they are unvaccinated to be less active in the community). It appears to be a sort of statistical anomaly as it makes no sense, why would you transmit the virus more, if you have had the vaccine, what would cause that?
Last edited:
35-65% reduction in odds of testing positive if vaccinated?
Well, if you have any idea of maths you would know that if, for example, you have 1 million vaccinated people, and assume 20% of people are exposed to the virus, then 70,000 to 130,000 would likely test positive. At the same time if the unvaccinated population number 200,000 (so, assuming around 17% unvaccinated) and, again, 20% exposed to the virus, then you only get 40,000 infected.
The absolute numbers of infected people who are vaccinated or unvaccinated is largely irrelevant unless you know the proportion of the total population who are vaccinated. In Melbourne now we have around 90% vaccinated, so it is inevitable that the vaccinated will be the majority of those infected. Doesn't mean the vaccines don't work, it just means the virus will infect some people, just a lot lower proportion of those who are vaccinated.
I'll just post this for the umpteenth time: https://theconversation.com/most-co...ated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671
DS
Well, if you have any idea of maths you would know that if, for example, you have 1 million vaccinated people, and assume 20% of people are exposed to the virus, then 70,000 to 130,000 would likely test positive. At the same time if the unvaccinated population number 200,000 (so, assuming around 17% unvaccinated) and, again, 20% exposed to the virus, then you only get 40,000 infected.
The absolute numbers of infected people who are vaccinated or unvaccinated is largely irrelevant unless you know the proportion of the total population who are vaccinated. In Melbourne now we have around 90% vaccinated, so it is inevitable that the vaccinated will be the majority of those infected. Doesn't mean the vaccines don't work, it just means the virus will infect some people, just a lot lower proportion of those who are vaccinated.
I'll just post this for the umpteenth time: https://theconversation.com/most-co...ated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671
DS
Yeah, if we were to ever reach 100% double vaxxed then anyone who gets covid must be vaxxed because there is no-one else avaible to get infected. So the transmission rate for those vaccinated would be 100%... haha
Thanks Roar. I am guessing you didn't watch the video.
What are your thoughts about lying about safety data which leads to tens of thousands of deaths. Is that criminal?
Also is that 'misinformation'?
You didn’t answer my question.
Assuming the video is correct as I havent fact checked it then looks what they did was illegal as they paid a settlement or decided fighting it was more costly than settling it. What are the tens of thousands of deaths you refer to? They refer to settlement fines In the video.
I pointed out the obvious conflict of interest in my post.
I think my view is pretty obvious if people/companies knowingly share misinformation that leads to death.
Yep.... and you have beautifully pointed out the nonsense that "studies" can demonstrate.
I have said before, that statistical analysis is very often completely floored and drawing "factual" conclusions can be erroneous. This has been very well demonstrated in studies around covid and various so called therapies.
Once you add in the desire to demonstrate or find a particular conclusion then such studies are completely useless and demonstrate nothing at all, apart from human dogma.
PhD in teaching bioscience. Not a virologist, immunologist, biostatistician,epidemiologist,pharmacologist and definately not the Messiah of Covid information.
More qualified than us, no doubt. But he's been called out by people more qualified than him
- this is an "appeal to authority" argument, which both sides are guilty of.As stated before, his videos have gotten more deceptive as he's gone further down the Ivermectin rabbit hole. The last video Lamb cited was disgraceful - citing a bunch of computer modelled theoretical drug interactions for Ivermectin as some sort of proof of efficacy was the worst I've seen from the guy yet. He is developing a loyal youtube following though.
In the Ivermectin community, there's now a shift to Vitamin D which Campbell has jumped on as well - Vitamin D shows some signs of benefit of course. I predict these shills will jump across to this stuff as the evidence for Ivermectin helping disappears completely.
More qualified than us, no doubt. But he's been called out by people more qualified than him
As stated before, his videos have gotten more deceptive as he's gone further down the Ivermectin rabbit hole. The last video Lamb cited was disgraceful - citing a bunch of computer modelled theoretical drug interactions for Ivermectin as some sort of proof of efficacy was the worst I've seen from the guy yet. He is developing a loyal youtube following though.
In the Ivermectin community, there's now a shift to Vitamin D which Campbell has jumped on as well - Vitamin D shows some signs of benefit of course. I predict these shills will jump across to this stuff as the evidence for Ivermectin helping disappears completely.
Yep it seems outrage is in high demand and YouTube advertisers pay well for it. Just a quicker version of ‘if it bleeds it leads’.
A poster raised it on Twitter but how much longer are we going to need to scan QR codes? Hopefully they'll be gone soon.
