CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version

CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version

+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: CV and mad panic behaviour (/thread-4651.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Thryleon - 06-17-2021

What does the data show about long covid?

Is it prevalent? I.e. out of 100% of cases, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% experience long covid??

We got told about this highly infectious, and virulent, and transmissable disease.

We have also been told a lot of bollocks about it, half truths, incomplete truths, random guesses, and very little transparency about it all which makes it all problematic for anyone to formulate a proper opinion.

The realist in me sees a fundamental problem. We analyse, 1's and 0's. The data is just data after all, its the assumptions formulated on said data that becomes a bit rubbery as we speculate on impact based on assumptions using data that is global but not modelled on the same demographics.

The assumptions (rightly) will be geared to a worst case scenario in a plan for the worst hope for the best scenario.

Even an extrapolated sample size of Australian data is not really telling of the story. We have 800 deaths out of 30000 that was a sample size heavily impacted by outbreaks in aged care settings which will produce biased results.

Thats not to belittle what happened here, or take away from the fact that people died or that people have gotten sick.

This is purely an effort to highlight some very real issues.

What does our data show?

Did many go to hospital because of covid or with covid?

What are the impacts aside from some flaky symptoms that are flu like?

What are the impacts of long covid (my only two first hand sources are sense of taste and smell impacted, and the other with random chest tightness but is bipolar, has anxiety and was relatively unscathed otherwise and only quit smoking in April of last year, after smoking for 20 years)?

How many of our recent cases got admitted to hospital? What was the impact of these recent 100 odd cases we have found out about to their health and well being? We dont need names, ages, date of births, just some high level information about the demographics will do: i.e. of our 100 odd, we had x that were aged 0-10, 10-20 etc and of those x were admitted to hospital for treatment with the following symptoms (etc etc etc).

Instead we get told about numbers numbers numbers and we need to lockdown for everyone's safety because this highly dangerous and transmissable strain, never really gets discussed about impacts which leaves a vacuum for people to fill in their own information with their own faulty assumptions which sways public opinion.

You know, I came to the following realisation and it actually is a better thing for people to know that the government was being transparent. Instead we here this rhetoric about the approach to lockdowns. From midnight friday, xyz is in place or no longer in place. This is bad information and approach that is geared towards control and enforcement. Instead we should be hearing "we have discovered X, and we encourage Y, and from midnight tonight we will be policing it to try and get on top of this but encourage that if you can do the 5 reasons you should and must do those reasons where possible" THAT is a better message and people are going to go raid the shops anyway and do what they need to do before going home, so we may as well do that. Instead we get this wishy-washy approach which is half bad communication, and bad planning. You know, if they said we are now recommending X as of right this minute based on the changing landscape, it would do more to instill confidence in people than the rubbery appraoch we have and it might make people consider their actions more, rather than squeezing in that holiday and running up the coast in a caravan they might be more responsible. They might not, but that's happening anyway and the longer we proceed like this, after 1.5 years of this bamboozling mess, the harder its going to be to get people to do the responsible thing based on good information and using valued judgements. Instead we encourage them to do "whatever it takes (deliberate use to highlight the real issues)" to get back to "normal".

Tell people the hard truths. Pandemics are responsible for global changes to normality and normality shifted as a result of them.

We don't know enough about COVID to draw any real conclusion, so this is the state of play:

1. Covid globally has caused a pandemic to occur and thus far we have thanks largely to good fortune and some decent planning (nope, politicians will never do this) avoided it becoming an epidemic here (terminology deliberate, look them up).

2. It seems to cause issues and grief regardless of age but not in all cases. you can gamble with your health if you wish, but dont blame us later if it goes pear shaped.

3. There is a lot of asymptomatic spread here, and thats ok, but globally that might not be the case and show the data. Our cases might simply be good luck, but here is the data on what WE have seen, vs what the world has seen which is WHY we take our appraoch (take people with you, dont just talk at them. Some will STFU because of it, rather than fill in the blanks.

4. The vaccines are our best protection method but we might see the virus mutate to resist them rendering them useless (dont pussy foot about it, just say it as it is). You don't have to have one, we won't make you take one, but you would feel pretty stupid if you ended up a statistic with one being made available to you that you refused to take because XYZ excuse. The reality is, we are doing our best here, but we just dont know enough so we are encouraging those most at risk to go for it, and let the others do what they think is necessary (messaging is better).

5. After seeing the way the government keep bungling every thing up, why on earth would anyone buy into some conspiracy theory about the suppression of one treatment over another anyway? There is nothing to suggest that the vaccine isnt just a placebo to calm the masses (this is my personal favourite as it is the most polarising, and I expect no one officially to come out and say it).

6. The alternative medicines are as horrific as any vaccine with side effects. Most doctors pushing said treatments are likely to be in big pharma's pocket anyway. So, we will make these drugs available to you if you want them, but you decide if you want them knowing that these are the side effects.

This is really not hard. For some reason, society has gone down a road where we insist on protecting everyone from themselves.

Let them decide whats good for them, and then let natural selection do the rest.

I have seen this play out in a lot of walks of life. We insist on protecting people from themselves. Stop it. Let them be what they want, and protect yourselves and stop mandating others do similar. We can all barricade ourselves indoors for the next 10 years if we must, and the life we live wont be worth talking about which is a complete waste of time, effort and energy. Encourage people to do what they want to. Life is too short to spend any extended period of time being told you cannot because the big bad wolf is out there, and we know he is out there, but when you look out the window, he is nowhere to be seen.

Draw your own conclusions here. I don't have answers for you, but here is my reason for me being vaccinated:

IF I take covid into an ICU, and I am a direct cause for one patient being sick and ergo dying ahead of their time, because I refused a vaccine, I probably couldn't bear the thought of ignoring the bit in bold. Apply the same to my loved ones. This was not an easy decision to make, because my assumption is that this vaccine is at best a time buying exercise for a world in a "pandemic" which in time we will look back and see that COVID wasnt really that big a deal.

That might be a best case scenario really, but I see it as massively likely, but even so, in case its not (nothing is certain in life) I took my vaccine anyway. The part that everyone is going to have time coming to terms with, is vaccine or not, will covid's impact be any different?

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 06-17-2021

Quote:I have seen this play out in a lot of walks of life. We insist on protecting people from themselves. Stop it. Let them be what they want, and protect yourselves and stop mandating others do similar.

I want to be protected from other people. That’s the idea behind drink-driving laws and many other types of laws. If someone wants to commit suicide in their own home, so be it. No point outlawing suicide. But if someone thinks they have the right to endanger everyone else, their claim to individual freedom is BS. In a decent society, people should be willing to rally together for the common good. If they won’t, that’s when laws are required.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 06-17-2021

(06-17-2021, 03:40 AM)Thryleon date Wrote:What does the data show about long covid?

Is it prevalent? I.e. out of 100% of cases, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50% experience long covid??

Even an extrapolated sample size of Australian data is not really telling of the story. We have 800 deaths out of 30000 that was a sample size heavily impacted by outbreaks in aged care settings which will produce biased results.

Thry, there is no real long COVID-19 data for Aust but the early USA data is saying 30% of all COVID-19 infections will result in some form of long COVID-19 health impact. They can't tell you what those impacts will be because they are on a spectrum from mild head aches, loss of smell/taste, to in the worst case heart and kidney failure. But they are already getting enough of an idea in the US on the potential cost$ simply because they have so so many cases, there is UK data due out in the coming weeks.

If the US stats are global, then of our 30000 cases 10000 would suffer long term COVID-19 effects.

Even Flyboys Ivermectin boosters are crapting themselves, because it looks like once long COVID-19 kicks in there is little or no effective treatment for it, and none of them expected asymptomatic types to suffer long COVID-19 but it looks like from the US stats even asymptomatic types can get long COVID-19. Those patients are going to become DALY or QALY statistics. For example, in the US long COVID-19 stats there are indications a percentage of infected will come out of it with diabetes, and that applies as a spectrum across all ages not just elderly.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - ElwoodBlues1 - 06-17-2021

(06-17-2021, 02:57 AM)Mav link Wrote:Should 50-60 year olds have priority access to Pfizer over 40-50 year olds or over 30-40 year olds who haven’t yet been eligible for any vaccine in Vic? What about under 30s? I’d think that those in the 50-60 year age group who have failed to get any vaccine over the last month or so should have no priority unless they’re otherwise in a vulnerable category. There’s insufficient supplies of Pfizer vaccine already and they should compete for spots.

Those in the 50 plus range should have equal opportunity to get the Pfizer. Why have Queensland decided to offer the choice?
Why should older Australians be lab rats for a dodgy vaccine that no one wants.
The Govt signed a deal with CSL to produce AstraZ but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a choice. There are plenty of older folk with conditions that will make it risky for them to have AstraZ.. Why not scrap it now and play it safe..

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 06-17-2021

The rollout had a stage where only those 60+ were eligible for the vaccine (leaving aside vulnerable categories and certain workers. Then at a certain date, it was 50+ and 60+ people had no priority over 50+ people. Now those who are 40+ are eligible, meaning the 50-60 year olds have no priority over the 40-50 year olds. Surely you’re not suggesting the 50-60 year olds should now be able to claim priority over the 40-50 year olds? And surely it’s time for the general category to be opened up to the 30+ ...

EDIT: I think we’re saying the same thing EB - the 50 to 60 year olds should have no priority concerning the Pfizer vaccine and should have just the same right as others in the under-60s general category. I guess the only issue you’ve taken further is the right of over-60s to chose Pfizer. If 60 is a safe limit, then the Govt should be able to only offer AZ given the need to ration Pfizer. Over 60s don’t have to take it. But I’m not in any position to comment on whether it’s safe or not.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - capcom - 06-17-2021

It's something of a mess but is much of it perceived or does it actually have some teeth?

The speed in distribution is arguably more in question imo rather than the "brand" of vaccine.

I'm not about to assign blame to that with the Feds, much the same as I didn't with floods or the all too recent bushfires, but this is an unseemly political bunfight.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - ElwoodBlues1 - 06-17-2021

(06-17-2021, 04:41 AM)Mav link Wrote:The rollout had a stage where only those 60+ were eligible for the vaccine (leaving aside vulnerable categories and certain workers. Then at a certain date, it was 50+ and 60+ people had no priority over 50+ people. Now those who are 40+ are eligible, meaning the 50-60 year olds have no priority over the 40-50 year olds. Surely you’re not suggesting the 50-60 year olds should now be able to claim priority over the 40-50 year olds? And surely it’s time for the general category to be opened up to the 30+ ...

EDIT: I think we’re saying the same thing EB - the 50 to 60 year olds should have no priority concerning the Pfizer vaccine and should have just the same right as others in the under-60s general category. I guess the only issue you’ve taken further is the right of over-60s to chose Pfizer. If 60 is a safe limit, then the Govt should be able to only offer AZ given the need to ration Pfizer. Over 60s don’t have to take it. But I’m not in any position to comment on whether it’s safe or not.

Mav, I'm just saying over 60's should have the right to choose Pfizer and the Government should order more instead of persisting with Astraz. Should they have priority over 30-50 year olds...No......but when the Queensland Govt are offering the choice I find it difficult to understand how the Federal Govt are pushing the AstraZ to over 60's and where are the Qld govt getting their supplies of Pfizer from if there is shortage everywhere else.
I think if the Federal Govt scrapped the Astraz and ordered more Pfizer then the vaccination numbers would rapidly increase as I read its the 50-69 year old age group that is lagging in vaccination takeup and the answer why is fairly obvious..

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - DJC - 06-17-2021

Dr Norman Swan is my go to man for most things medical and his Coronacast is very informative.

He has been vaccinated ... with AstraZeneca. However, he maintains that the Government stuffed up by not ordering different vaccines and more of them. In other words, rather than penny-pinching with modest purchases, the approach taken with Moderna should have been adopted with all approved vaccines.

I guess you have to lump that in with the failure to build purpose-built quarantine facilities.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Thryleon - 06-17-2021

(06-17-2021, 03:52 AM)Mav link Wrote:I want to be protected from other people. That’s the idea behind drink-driving laws and many other types of laws. If someone wants to commit suicide in their own home, so be it. No point outlawing suicide. But if someone thinks they have the right to endanger everyone else, their claim to individual freedom is BS. In a decent society, people should be willing to rally together for the common good. If they won’t, that’s when laws are required.

Lock yourself in your house then.

Covid vaccine will protect you from severe symptoms, but it doesnt stop people from catching cocid nor will it stop people from spreading it.

You can't mandate everyone else be locked up for your safety.

Thats impractical. Maybe you could move to Antarctica where you'll be safe?

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 06-17-2021

And yet the government did mandate restrictions. All to protect me. No one else. Amazing I have that much pull, eh?