Carlton Supporters Club
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 - Baggers - 08-02-2021

(08-02-2021, 06:47 AM)capcom link Wrote:Interesting that Warne was fully vaccinated and still got Covid.

The big question is... how crook did he get? Vaccinations won't necessarily prevent getting Covid, their primary task as I understand it, is preventing life threatening illness.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - capcom - 08-02-2021

Agree [member=61]Baggers[/member] ... won't know for a while as it was o'nite news at 5 a.m. today.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 08-02-2021

The latest from the UK.

Tables 4,5 and 6 surely tell a story....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Thryleon - 08-02-2021

(08-02-2021, 11:17 AM)flyboy77 link Wrote:The latest from the UK.

Tables 4,5 and 6 surely tell a story....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

What story do you assert they tell?

Honest question. 

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Baggers - 08-02-2021

(08-02-2021, 07:13 AM)capcom link Wrote:Agree [member=61]Baggers[/member] ... won't know for a while as it was o'nite news at 5 a.m. today.

Just read the article in the HUN with Warney reporting on his symptoms - mild. As he is in England he is seeing first hand the terrible impact and is a strong advocate for the 'double jab'. He got the Pfizer.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 08-03-2021

(08-02-2021, 11:59 AM)Thryleon link Wrote:What story do you assert they tell?

Honest question. 

Not an assertion, but rather some easily drawn conclusions drawn from Government sourced empirical data.

Table 4 - the rate of death from the Alpha (UK) strain is more than 5 times the rate of death from Delta (Indian). Attachment 2.

              (and it would appear this is independent of any vaccine 'effect' looking at the previous reports)

Conclusion: Delta is far less virulent (which fits with virology 100).

Table 6 - Secondary attack rates (transmission in a more scary way) - Alpha 10.2%, 5.6% (household, non household)

              Delta 11.0, 5.8% - that is, same same as Alpha.

Conclusion: Delta is pretty much on a par with Alpha in terms of transmissability - despite the BS from many quarters. Which fits with what didn't happen with the Delta outbreak in Melbourne.

Table 5 - the real stand out.

            (see attachment 1 for a snippet)

The table shows 121,402 cases of Delta of the unvaccinated. 165 have sadly died. 0.1% of cases.

The table also shows 28,773 Delta cases in the fully vaccinated, 224 people sadly died. 0.8% of cases.

Conclusion: The PHE data shows that people who have received two doses of a CV19 vaccine have a 507% higher chance of dying due to the Delta variant than people who are unvaccinated.

Do your best LP.

And here's the laughable Burnet report Scomo and the Premiers plan to use to justify ongoing lockdowns....i'll comment more later (yet to read it in full) but this one chart caught my eye.

Risk benefit for the u50s, arguably even u60s??

https://www.burnet.edu.au/system/asset/file/4835/Burnet_Institute_Long-term_COVID-19_control_requires_a_combination_of_high_vaccination_and_intermittent_control_measures.pdf


Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 08-03-2021

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.

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 08-03-2021

Listen to me only says LP, I know better.

(when clearly you don't).

Ignore the empirical data, rely on the models LP says (because they're far more scary). Yeah, good one.

The conclusions I drew could be reached by any switched on 8yo doing a comprehension test.

Very charitable of you to let others "take it further".

Such magnanimity!

Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - flyboy77 - 08-03-2021

Quote:However, Delta is proving lethal in younger demographics.

An LP special.

In Australia, 13 dead, the youngest was that 38yo lady (who may well have had one shot, the NSW authorities won't confirm or deny).

In the UK, back to the recent report.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

Table 4 again (page 14 for LP who can't find it seemingly):

Alpha deaths under 50 - 66 deaths or 0.1%

Delta? u50 - 45 or 0.0%

(ok, 0.02% if you go to 2dp).

Keep trying LP.



Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 08-03-2021

(08-03-2021, 01:41 AM)flyboy77 date Wrote:An LP special.
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!