Coronavirus

[Ian4]

1431 in NSW. 12 deaths. I’ve stopped watching press conferences but apparently Gladys is claiming NSW will peak in 2 weeks. In the unlikely event that’s true, it means they’ll peak at about 4,300 daily cases at a Reff of 1.1 and 10,300 daily cases at a Reff Number of 1.2.

VIC 14 day average is 88.6.
NSW VIC 14 day average after 30 days was 57.1

 

[MD Jazz]

"Good" example of infection chains.... ending up in workplace transmission. So in that place was the cause non compliance.... or was every rule followed and it still occurs? If the latter who is reviewing the rules? 1.5m, 4sg m density, hand sanitiser (never hear it mentioned) better grade of masks?
Delta has arrived in a Stuka and we might still be resisting with a 303.

Exactly. Are workplaces high risk areas? What type of workplaces? How do we deal with it, do we need to change the rules/settings? Surely we have a fair bit of data now to conduct analysis and update guidelines?

How many transmissions have occurred at supermarkets?

If supermarkets are "safe" most retail could also be safe?

 

[Redford]

She was dead within a day of diagnosis. Anyone who is delaying getting vaccinated or won't get vaccinated is absolutely insane.

I’m expecting we’ve got a lot of insane people Pidley. What correlation would there be between all the moronic anti lockdown and anti regulation people that we see day in and day out and people who will remain unvaccinated ? Reasonable proportion I reckon. Research indicates an 85% willingness to get vaccinated but 15% remaining is still pretty high. Insane indeed.

 

[MD Jazz]

Not good numbers today, while the lockdown is having an impact it is clearly not enough at the moment. I think the issue with all those people down the beach is more what they do around the visit to the beach. While the virus might not spread while you are standing on the windy beach, what about when you enter the crowded change rooms and toilets, what about when you get an ice cream or coffee at a nearby shop, you "bump into" someone you know at the beach and then drop over to their house etc?

DS

This should be relatively simple to prove or disprove. But we don't get told.

 

[DavidSSS]

Geez more claims about the new wonder drug Ivermectin, I really do wonder at the motivation of those who keep touting this.

The reality is that the research is inconclusive. Do we start telling people to take a drug which may do nothing? No, we investigate first.

When we look at academic journals rather than internet touts we get a very different view than the glowing reviews of the internet touts.

In the Journal, Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology an article in April concluded:

Based on current results, the potential for repurposing ivermectin as an antiviral agent is promising. However, further work is needed to reconcile in vitro studies with clinical efficacy. Developing ivermectin as an additional antiviral agent should be pursued with an emphasis on pre-clinical trials in validated models of infection.

In the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in July 2021 the following conclusion was reached:

Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

BMC Infectious Diseases published an article entitled "Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial." in July which concluded:

Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

Touting Ivermectin in the absence of reliable and credible studies is simply irresponsible. Lamb, you keep touting your drug of choice and quoting the internet, I'll go looking for academic journals myself.

It is clear that there is not enough evidence to promote Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID.

DS

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Presume it's tattooed somewhere on their body? Inner thigh perhaps?

Tramp stamp just above the tail bone. That way if the client has forgotten to check in at the beginning of the encounter (due to their mind being frazzled by the haze of lustful energy), they will be reminded to check in while in the final thrusts.

 

[IanG]

The Age demeans itself as well as the Victorian public health team - Pearls and Irritations

The most disturbing aspect of The Age’s disappointing editorial yesterday is its undermining of the state’s public health messaging and compliance efforts. Yesterday The Age published a provocative editorial, “Victoria cannot go on like this”, which many saw as undermining the Victorian...

johnmenadue.com

 

[RoarEmotion]

If we lived at a time when truth mattered Paul Kelly would be sacked today. The Chief Medical Officer has a responsibility to provide accurate advice to the public. It can literally be a matter of life and death.

He made two claims yesterday which are outright lies.

1. "There is not a single study that shows effectiveness of Ivermectin against Covid." There are over 60, including invitro, in vivo, in silico, observational trials , randomised control trials and meta analyses

https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf

Here is a report on the latest ridgey didge double blind randomised control trial from Israel.

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day

Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use

www.jpost.com

2." Ivermectin is not safe". Below is a link to the World Health Organisation's database of recorded adverse events for medications. Read the standard disclaimers on page 1 and then do a search of Ivermectin and your drug of choice and see how they compare. Try aspirin, paracetemol or Comirnaty.

VigiAccess

www.vigiaccess.org

Will any mainstream journalist in Australia hold him to account?

Did you read the article?

The sample size is tiny. It HASN’T been peer reviewed and quoting from the article the author of the study says.

“ His study did not prove ivermectin was effective as a prophylactic, meaning that it could prevent disease, he cautioned, nor did it show that it reduces the chances of hospitalization. However, other studies have shown such evidence, he added.”

Basically he says it’s worth investigating further. That’s fine. But don’t think this can be presented as evidence as proper study has been done. You are doing yourself a disservice posting stuff like this as proof and calling it Ridgey didge. You look like you are throwing paint at a wall and hoping some sticks.

I’m all for investigating and if people are dying, then much like cancer, if you have nothing to lose then trying something, even as a placebo effect, can work. (Making sure you don’t OD or use it incorrectly.)

 

[lamb22]

So David, research studies in peer reviewed publications I link too are "quoting the internet" and studies in peer reviewed publications you link to are not "quoting the internet"

Have I got that right?

 

[AngryAnt]

Everytime I see a show on TV and the person's occupation is introduced as an "influencer" I feel like putting a bottle through the TV. My wife made the comment, if someone said to her, they are an "influencer" in the context of it being an occupation, her response is, "Yes, that goes under the hobbies or qualities section, but what do you really do?"

the sad thing is that people can actually make a living from it.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

the sad thing is that people can actually make a living from it.

Symptomatic of how vacuous society is. Mindless drones with little ability to think anymore than at a superficial level about the world around them.

 

[AngryAnt]

So David, research studies in peer reviewed publications I link too are "quoting the internet" and studies in peer reviewed publications you link to are not "quoting the internet"

Have I got that right?

None of us have the medical research expertise to judge the merits of individual studies - hence we rely on secondary expert interpretations. At least I don't have any medical research qualifications, maybe you do Lamb.

Like I keep saying, if high quality research that is accepted by the broader medical research community as legitimate shows real clinical benefits, then use the drug in appropriate situations.

Presenting lists of poor quality studies - as judged by people who actually have qualifications in the area - is not meaningful or convincing. Gotcha Youtube videos withly poorly disguised political agendas are pretty weak as well.

 

[Redford]

Seems like the Jamie Kah Air BnB party and subsequent 3 month suspension now has another leg to it.

Being charged with providing false and misleading information to investigators.

 

[lamb22]

Did you read the article?

The sample size is tiny. It hasn’t been peer reviewed and quoting from the article the author of the study says.

“ His study did not prove ivermectin was effective as a prophylactic, meaning that it could prevent disease, he cautioned, nor did it show that it reduces the chances of hospitalization. However, other studies have shown such evidence, he added.”

Why this knee jerk reaction to obvious facts. Your own quote above says other studies have shown evidence of Ivermectin preventing disease.

My argument is that Kelly lied. You cannot refute that. It is absolutely crystal clear. Will any journalist ask Kelly about the Schwarz study, or the Chala study or the Carvallo studies or the Behera study or the Mahmud study or the Chowdury study or the Babola study or the Podder study or the Ravkirti study or the Nizee study or the Hashim study or the ICON study in Florida.

 

[AngryAnt]

Symptomatic of how vacuous society is. Mindless drones with little ability to think anymore than at a superficial level about the world around them.

I don't think we have changed that much. There are still deep thinkers and shallow people who care about celebs, gossip, footy, whatever and there always were.

The difference now is that anyone can do this and reach a wide audience. People can get together and judge others much quicker than they used to be able to.

 

[DavidSSS]

So David, research studies in peer reviewed publications I link to are "quoting the internet" and studies in peer reviewed publications you link to are not "quoting the internet"

Have I got that right?

Correct.

You are quoting internet sites touting the miracle cure of Ivermectin.

I am quoting academic journals.

I know which one I trust.

DS

 

[lamb22]

None of us have the medical research expertise to judge the merits of individual studies - hence we rely on secondary expert interpretations. At least I don't have any medical research qualifications, maybe you do Lamb.

Like I keep saying, if high quality research that is accepted by the broader medical research community as legitimate shows real clinical benefits, then use the drug in appropriate situations.

Presenting lists of poor quality studies - as judged by people who actually have qualifications in the area - is not meaningful or convincing. Gotcha Youtube videos withly poorly disguised political agendas is pretty weak as well.

So when you talk about people with qualifications in the area you mean someone like Tess Lawrie or Andrew Hill who get hired by the World Health Organisation to assess the strength of medical evidence on their behalf? Is that right?

 

[lamb22]

Correct.

You are quoting internet sites touting the miracle cure of Ivermectin.

I am quoting academic journals.

I know which one I trust.

DS

I see your comprehension skills are pretty poor. Did you not understand the question?

 

[AngryAnt]

Why this knee jerk reaction to obvious facts. Your own quote above says other studies have shown evidence of Ivermectin preventing disease.

My argument is that Kelly lied. You cannot refute that. It is absolutely crystal clear. Will any journalist ask Kelly about the Schwarz study, or the Chala study or the Carvallo studies or the Behera study or the Mahmud study or the Chowdury study or the Babola study or the Podder study or the Ravkirti study or the Nizee study or the Hashim study or the ICON study in Florida.

You lied. You said that Merck claimed that Ivermectin is a dangerous drug in their March press release, when they said the studies they had seen had inadequate safety data. You know this to be a lie, but you keep repeating it.

I know you just regurgitate the alt-right twittersphere on this, but it's still a lie.

 

[DavidSSS]

On to something more relevant than the latest miracle cure touted online.

I simply cannot believe what I see when numbers like the following come out, here are the vaccination booking, just for Astra-Zeneca, for Victoria yesterday:

• 18-29 years – 5,707 bookings
• 30-39 years- 5,082
• 40-49 years – 298
• 50-59 years – 500
• 60-69 years – just under 2,000
• 70plus – 620 bookings

FFS there is clearly f*** all vaccine hesitancy from young people, they are lining up to get AZ (mainly because they can't get a Pfizer appointment until mid October because of the Feds f*** up) but older folk are holding back. This is simply idiotic.

DS