yeah you need to be pretty resilient to let Peta Credlin *smile* you in the ears every Thursday night
-
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
yeah you need to be pretty resilient to let Peta Credlin *smile* you in the ears every Thursday night
Beyond two or three North and Western LGA’s, why is there such a low vax rate in the Melbourne, Yarra, Port Phillip and to a lesser extent, Stonnington LGA’s ?
Over half of daily cases are associated with under 30’s.
Having lived and worked in three of those four LGA’s and knowing the demographics pretty well, I suspect we are going to eventually start seeing inner city under 30’s the primary cohort of infections.
Businesses in these areas - particularly in the Melbourne LGA - have been complaining vociferously about lockdowns, restrictions, losing their business etc for quite some time. Maybe they should apply some equal promotional energy into getting people in their local area vaccinated because if they become young, hotbeds for infection, then people will be reluctant to venture back into the CBD, Richmond, Fitzroy, Carlton, Port etc and their businesses will sink regardless when lockdowns and restrictions begin to get lifted.
Over half of daily cases are associated with under 30’s.
Having lived and worked in three of those four LGA’s and knowing the demographics pretty well, I suspect we are going to eventually start seeing inner city under 30’s the primary cohort of infections.
Businesses in these areas - particularly in the Melbourne LGA - have been complaining vociferously about lockdowns, restrictions, losing their business etc for quite some time. Maybe they should apply some equal promotional energy into getting people in their local area vaccinated because if they become young, hotbeds for infection, then people will be reluctant to venture back into the CBD, Richmond, Fitzroy, Carlton, Port etc and their businesses will sink regardless when lockdowns and restrictions begin to get lifted.
Last edited:
Hard to work out why Sydney plateaud at a lower number than us considering we locked down harder and earlier.
Yeah fair enough. The uneven media treatment given to Dan compared to Gladys hasn't helped as it has effectively encouraged Mebourne/Victoria to break the rules.
Moderna has arguably a greater efficacy than Pfizer it's just been later to the party leaving people fixated on Pfizer
.
Moderna vs. Pfizer: Is One Vaccine Stronger Against the Delta Variant?
With many now able to choose which COVID vaccine they receive, questions surrounding which offers better protection against the now-surging delta variant have spiked.
www.nbcchicago.com
Also a think it’s a good thing that they are no longer publishing tier 2 exposure sites. Once the state opens up they won’t be reported as you should already be vaccinated. It just frees up resources for the higher risk situations. It’s a sign that our CHO are moving slowly towards the new normal.
So I found an article (written by the proninvermectin crowd) that provides a myriad of research and the emotional pulls to fit a conspiracy narrative around the whole sequence of events. Within all this will be elements of truth to big pharma profiteering conflated with a cartel meta story of control. It blithely shows that same aggregated data @lamb22 sent that has studies shown to be false and a story that first the pharmas made money from the vaccine and now they will make money from the antivirals and that was their plan all along. It’s a good story and one that’s easy to believe. It will likely be true that this is how pharmas profit but is it really a grand mastermind global conspiracy with a virus deliberately manufactured and released in Wuhan? Seems like a great movie
it then strengthens it followers with this stuff, undermining any rebuffs and public institutions. And as posts here attest - those supporting invernectin have been vilified. When this gets done, the vilifier basically confirms the story being true to those who are vilified.
“In this Pandemic, those who do not conform to lockdowns, mask wear, or vaccination protocols are vilified, regardless of the science. As Greenwald observes, our totalitarianism is couched in the guise of “helping and healing others.” We live in a totalitarian “therapeutic culture.” Those who do not conform are branded as “the enemy (of the state).” AND
“There is a reason that so many health care professionals are speaking out against the mandates, and it may have something to do with the fact healthcare is their field. For example, if airline pilots, experts in their field, refused to fly on a specific model of 747 aircraft, would an average person wish to know why, or would they blindly jump on that plane – because the FAA declared it safe? Help get the truth out.”
I think it’s important to understand why others have their views so if you want to understand why people ignore science then this helps explain it a little.
Good summary Roar. Vilification rarely changes minds. And it's worth saying that it goes both ways - Fauci is an evil criminal, people who accept what medical scientists (and politicians) say are "sheeple", or shills for the "system" or big pharma. Personally, being called a "sheeple" doesn't offend me, as I know I'll look at any evidence that Lamb or whoever throws up and make a critical assessment, as far as I'm able to. So I'm guilty of doing my own research too
The thing about these types of grand conspiracy theories - just as with the 9/11 Truther movement - is that any new evidence, pro or con, can be incorporated into the theory. Big Pharma says Ivermectin and HCQ don't actually work, we need to create new anti-virals. So they do, and the new drugs work much better than HCQ and IV - the conspiracists say "ah that just proves our point, they suppressed the data, they are in it for the money". In the more extreme versions of the conspiracy the new drugs are just rebadged ivermectin - even though this would be ridiculously simple to prove if true.
Personally I don't get the angst about pharmaceutical companies and profit.
Every other consumable we use has the same basis ie car, food,cosmetics, phone , power etc etc.
It is a nonsense human hysteria.
I really could not be the slightest bit bothered by what reasons people make for their decisions.
It's as simple as any choice in life could be.
Want to stay healthy...get vaccinated.
Want to get covid ...don't get vaccinated. Um..why would you?
Sorry, but anything else is mind boggling nonsense.
Every other consumable we use has the same basis ie car, food,cosmetics, phone , power etc etc.
It is a nonsense human hysteria.
I really could not be the slightest bit bothered by what reasons people make for their decisions.
It's as simple as any choice in life could be.
Want to stay healthy...get vaccinated.
Want to get covid ...don't get vaccinated. Um..why would you?
Sorry, but anything else is mind boggling nonsense.
Thanks for explaining my pathology Roar (and fellow travellers).
Let's just follow the science right. Yet apparently that does not mean examining an argument from first principles. It means following government edicts. It means following. anecdotes from media rather than aggregated data.
Science is never static. In deed the ability to be able to falsify a theory is key. Science is not dogma. Perhaps a simple working definition is knowledge or data about the physical world obtained through observation and reproduceable experimentation. Yet on here it's now apparently about pop psychology, whether someone who presents data is an old dude, has a bad wig or suit or whether peer reviewed papers are published on the right website. While definitive declarations of truth are fraught with peril there are probably three observations which one might state to be true in the context of our current knowledge.
1. Vaccines are a very effective tool but not all vaccines are created equal.
2. Natural immunity provides a robust defence against re-infection.
3. Leaving aside issues of efficacy, Ivermectin is a much safer drug than the covid vaccines.
The arguments on here have been emotional, mostly drawn out of fear where various groups are demonised because they threaten our safety and dissenters to orthodoxy silenced or ridiculed ( and now psycho analysed ) All good because it is a footy forum after all.
However if people want to engage with me on scientific discussions my pre-requisite is an acknowledgement of the above facts or a data driven scientific rebuttal (not emotional drivel) of why the above statements are incorrect. Of course if you do accept the above as scientific facts a lot of your inferences, conclusions and proclamations are untenable.
Let's just follow the science right. Yet apparently that does not mean examining an argument from first principles. It means following government edicts. It means following. anecdotes from media rather than aggregated data.
Science is never static. In deed the ability to be able to falsify a theory is key. Science is not dogma. Perhaps a simple working definition is knowledge or data about the physical world obtained through observation and reproduceable experimentation. Yet on here it's now apparently about pop psychology, whether someone who presents data is an old dude, has a bad wig or suit or whether peer reviewed papers are published on the right website. While definitive declarations of truth are fraught with peril there are probably three observations which one might state to be true in the context of our current knowledge.
1. Vaccines are a very effective tool but not all vaccines are created equal.
2. Natural immunity provides a robust defence against re-infection.
3. Leaving aside issues of efficacy, Ivermectin is a much safer drug than the covid vaccines.
The arguments on here have been emotional, mostly drawn out of fear where various groups are demonised because they threaten our safety and dissenters to orthodoxy silenced or ridiculed ( and now psycho analysed
) All good because it is a footy forum after all.However if people want to engage with me on scientific discussions my pre-requisite is an acknowledgement of the above facts or a data driven scientific rebuttal (not emotional drivel) of why the above statements are incorrect. Of course if you do accept the above as scientific facts a lot of your inferences, conclusions and proclamations are untenable.
Last edited:
Your statement is incorrect and needs to be qualified. People who are vaccinated can still get infected, hospitalised and die.
Yes...these are the very old and frail ie 90 year olds or those with very serious co morbidities ie cancer or chemotherapy.
No arguement that some will not be protected despite full vaccination.
Otherwise healthy people are very very unlikely to become significantly ill.
Whether vaccination prevents infectivity to others is yet to be determined. It certainly does with most other vaccines and my money is that it does with covid too. Only time will tell.
Still...my point is that it is irrelevant that vaccines are made by pharmaceutical companies or come from say fish eggs.
The source of the supply is in no way relevant to the choice to vaccinate or not.
I understand that Lamby has his own views and is perfectly entitled to them. They are not wacky. But I don't share them.
No arguement that some will not be protected despite full vaccination.
Otherwise healthy people are very very unlikely to become significantly ill.
Whether vaccination prevents infectivity to others is yet to be determined. It certainly does with most other vaccines and my money is that it does with covid too. Only time will tell.
Still...my point is that it is irrelevant that vaccines are made by pharmaceutical companies or come from say fish eggs.
The source of the supply is in no way relevant to the choice to vaccinate or not.
I understand that Lamby has his own views and is perfectly entitled to them. They are not wacky. But I don't share them.
Thats true, much like soldiers that go to war can get shot and can die. Doesn't mean they don't wear their protective equipment though.
Exactly the same argument as Covid. We have protective equipment (vaccines) that can maybe save your life, why would you not take it. The argument is, "well I could get shot and still survive", yes thats true, but wearing your protective equipment gives your a GREATER chance of survival.
I just reposted this because it is classic Angry Ant. Complex issues are a bit much for Anty so he creates his own strawmen. When you create a caricature you can easily dismiss it. Also Anty's research is usually 'scanning' voluminous documents in minutes and absorbing truth by osmosis.Good summary Roar. Vilification rarely changes minds. And it's worth saying that it goes both ways - Fauci is an evil criminal, people who accept what medical scientists (and politicians) say are "sheeple", or shills for the "system" or big pharma. Personally, being called a "sheeple" doesn't offend me, as I know I'll look at any evidence that Lamb or whoever throws up and make a critical assessment, as far as I'm able to. So I'm guilty of doing my own research too
The thing about these types of grand conspiracy theories - just as with the 9/11 Truther movement - is that any new evidence, pro or con, can be incorporated into the theory. Big Pharma says Ivermectin and HCQ don't actually work, we need to create new anti-virals. So they do, and the new drugs work much better than HCQ and IV - the conspiracists say "ah that just proves our point, they suppressed the data, they are in it for the money". In the more extreme versions of the conspiracy the new drugs are just rebadged ivermectin - even though this would be ridiculously simple to prove if true.
'Truther movement' "5G chips" lump anything you can find together so that you don't have to produce data or facts by way of rebuttal. Then pump yourself up by saying " I do my own research too." If you did your research Anty it would be evident in your posting, it's not. Another strawman is "Fauci is an evil criminal". You can tell by the level of hyperbole how uncertain Anty is on this issue. Once again some facts for Anty to rebut (and people can make their own assessments on culpability or character of Dr Fauci.
1. Fauci lied about the efficacy of masks (and later admitted it).
2. In his admission about 1 above he then lied about one of the reasons (he falsely claimed that they were not aware of the level of asymptomatic transmission)
3. He lied about the level required to gain herd immunity ( and later admitted it)
4. He lied about his department funding gain of function research in Wuhan ( Interestingly new information has leaked about EcoHealth seeking funding in 2018 from DARPA to infect bats with ramped up corona viruses and release them into Batcaves - I kid you not and a lot of you guys are painting some rednecks as the villains in this drama)
Also just as some background on Fauci or fact 5 if you will in the HIV pandemic he suggested transmission was possibly airborne and recommended vaccination as a solution together with promoting a very expensive ineffective drug.
In my view Fauci has some significant questions to answer not least the possible contempt of Congress
Thanks for explaining my pathology Roar (and fellow travellers).
Let's just follow the science right. Yet apparently that does not mean examining an argument from first principles. It means following government edicts. It means following. anecdotes from media rather than aggregated data.
Science is never static. In deed the ability to be able to falsify a theory is key. Science is not dogma. Perhaps a simple working definition is knowledge or data about the physical world obtained through observation and reproduceable experimentation. Yet on here it's now apparently about pop psychology, whether someone who presents data is an old dude, has a bad wig or suit or whether peer reviewed papers are published on the right website. While definitive declarations of truth are fraught with peril there are probably three observations which one might state to be true in the context of our current knowledge.
1. Vaccines are a very effective tool but not all vaccines are created equal.
2. Natural immunity provides a robust defence against re-infection.
3. Leaving aside issues of efficacy, Ivermectin is a much safer drug than the covid vaccines.
The arguments on here have been emotional, mostly drawn out of fear where various groups are demonised because they threaten our safety and dissenters to orthodoxy silenced or ridiculed ( and now psycho analysed
However if people want to engage with me on scientific discussions my pre-requisite is an acknowledgement of the above facts or a data driven scientific rebuttal (not emotional drivel) of why the above statements are incorrect. Of course if you do accept the above as scientific facts a lot of your inferences, conclusions and proclamations are untenable.
So it turns out you are an anti-vaxxer. Interesting since a few posts back you told us to get vaccinated - Ivermectin was merely a useful therapeutic and supplement to vaccination. Remember that?
I guess if you go far enough down the rabbit hole you reach a point where it's impossible to turn around, you just have to keep going deeper.
You are right - science is never static, so if Ivermectin is proven clinically useful in treating Covid great, I will happily acknowledge that and line up for my dose, if my doctor prescribes it.
Thing is though, most of what you propose is not related to science. It's highly political statements about big Pharma lies, Fauci conspiring with the Chinese, and medical researchers hiding the truth or being shills for big Pharma.
That's all ok by me, you can believe what you want. Its fun debating such easily disproved woo. But don't pretend you are arguing from a position of science.
