CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

Exactly.....so why is it happening?
Dig deeper and you will find one of 2 things.
1. Countries are jumping at shadows and those numbers are well within the acceptable ranges of these things.
2. There is another problem that is actually behind the suspensions.

My contention is there is no harm in doing our own research into what these other countries are seeing.

There is nothing wrong with digging deeper, as long as finding aren't cherry-picked.

1. Is true based purely on the stats, and unbiased actuary or epidemiologist will give you that advice.

2. Is at this time a fiction based on nothing at all but imagination.

btw; How common is thrombosis?

For reference the global average for DVT, just one of the four forms of clot claimed to be at issue, the lifetime occurrence is 2% to 5%, which I believe equates to 1 in every 1000 per year of those vaccinated coincidentally getting DVT, or half of all the registered global clot cases from just one coincidental cause, of course it's the most common cause! Most will have a sore leg, arm or headache and won't even report it, as many minor clots go unnoticed as a muscle strain or minor pain, it is possible health professionals are now detecting more of these due to "Awareness"?

Don't ask me how those stats work out it's above my pay grade, I just believe the mathematicians.

[kruddler]

Some countries are now announcing the intention to resume overnight, after the EU peak body told them the suspension was unfounded.

I can't believe that intention to resume has happened so quickly by the way.

That tells you the initial suspension process was dubious if not corrupt, right from the start!

We will know in two or three days, but that flip time frame isn't coming from a scientific investigation result, it's either bureaucratic or political.

The question is, was the reason to stop it or start it political....or both.
Perhaps the reason to suspend it was scientific.....perhaps not made public.....and the pressure to start it up again was political.

Too many variables. Further digging required.

With any luck, its all above board.
However, as i said from the beginning, i'm not going to be the first person lined up for it when it happens. Simply more risk involved being at the front of the queue. Acceptable risk, possibly, but more risk regardless.

[kruddler]

There is nothing wrong with digging deeper, as long as finding aren't cherry-picked.

1. Is true based purely on the stats, and unbiased actuary or epidemiologist will give you that advice.

2. Is a fiction based on nothing at all but imagination.

If the police get wind of a bomb threat. It falls into those 2 categories.

With a bit of digging and investigation, they can work out which one.
No harm in doing some thorough police work.....consequences could bad if you assume one or the other.

[Thryleon]

The question is, was the reason to stop it or start it political....or both.
Perhaps the reason to suspend it was scientific.....perhaps not made public.....and the pressure to start it up again was political.

Too many variables. Further digging required.

With any luck, its all above board.
However, as i said from the beginning, i'm not going to be the first person lined up for it when it happens. Simply more risk involved being at the front of the queue. Acceptable risk, possibly, but more risk regardless.

Logical.

Question everything and question everything again.

Initially I stated this to those advocates of ivermectin remdesivir etc that why push a drug if you're certain the virus is harmless? 

That got a few thinking hard. 

The real question is, why push anything at all at this stage? 

I dont understand why any Australian is so confident of any vaccine truths or untruths.  We have less than 30000 confirmed covid cases to base any assertion of effectiveness of any vaccine so therefore we are either using a test lab to base our vaccine effectiveness on, or we are using another nations data.

Either way I'm uncomfortable with any assertion the vaccine actually works, let alone whether or not its safe for human use.

[LP]

Logical.

Question everything and question everything again.

Initially I stated this to those advocates of ivermectin remdesivir etc that why push a drug if you're certain the virus is harmless? 

That got a few thinking hard. 

The real question is, why push anything at all at this stage? 

I dont understand why any Australian is so confident of any vaccine truths or untruths.  We have less than 30000 confirmed covid cases to base any assertion of effectiveness of any vaccine so therefore we are either using a test lab to base our vaccine effectiveness on, or we are using another nations data.

Either way I'm uncomfortable with any assertion the vaccine actually works, let alone whether or not its safe for human use.

Which is why I also asked you Popper's question weeks back, that should really get you hard thinking!

PS; The concept the virus is dead or extinct in Australia is also a pure fallacy, and a very very dangerous one!

[kruddler]

Either way I'm uncomfortable with any assertion the vaccine actually works, let alone whether or not its safe for human use.

I'm not sure if this has been covered already, but the thought just popped into my head, so i'll expand on it here.

From my understanding, these vaccines dont stop you from getting the virus, they just make it more manageable i guess. Dull the symptoms etc.
Given that, it is believed that once the vaccine has been rolled out we will return to a more normal way of life. Travel etc.

Going a step further......that will likely increase the amount of transmissions of the virus in the public.
Since the elderly (and other immune weakened people) are more likely to be affected (in the short term at least - worst case scenario is death) are they more likely to get Covid now due to the increased number transmitting the virus....potentially unknowingly due to dulled symptoms. However, since they are still in a high risk category, could still have serious issues with it, even if they've had the vaccine.

End result, is it not simply a numbers game?
% chance of getting the virus increases <-> chance of death decreases

Hypothetically....
If the vaccine is 50% effective, but the general public are 500% more likely to get it, are you not more at risk from dying from it than you were previously?

[LP]

As an aside, I have only a couple of valid contacts for the USA, people I can trust regardless of politics. Both I use to verify what we see in news or social media is realistically reported.

Coincidentally, one contact is quite valid for confirming the COVID-19 situation, his daughter who he loves dearly is a Federal Head of Emergency Medicine for a large segment covering some of the south eastern states. This is something that causes him significant stress, for good reason obviously.

He's told me this morning, evening his time, his daughter just rang as she does most nights and the widespread vaccination rate has seen new cases falling dramatically, hospital wards are no longer over-flowing. They've strategically targeted the most vulnerable with vaccine rollout, the relief in his voice is palpable. There is someway to go of course, but once hospitals are no longer over-loaded the death rate will plummet, it's all about how many and how fast!

[LP]

Hypothetically....
If the vaccine is 50% effective, but the general public are 500% more likely to get it, are you not more at risk from dying from it than you were previously?

[member=20]kruddler[/member]  Efficacy figures as reported are not simple as the media interpretations make out, it's a combination of symptom prevention, infection susceptibility and transmission prevention.

50% efficacy won't mean that the severe symptoms aren't prevented in close to 100% of the vaccinated. 50% it can mean some are protected but can still get or transmit the virus at 50% of the virus Ro value.

Yes, a more transmissible virus is far more deadly than a less transmissible virus regardless of the lethality. For this reason it's wrong for the vaccinated to freely circulate among the unvaccinated, without continuing the use of protective measures.

Ironically, a virus that is more lethal can often kill less as the host dies too soon to transmit, deaths are a function of lethality versus transmission. You could make the absurd analogy that a bullet is the most lethal virus, but once you've had it you won't spread it!

[kruddler]

As an aside, I have only a couple of valid contacts for the USA, people I can trust regardless of politics. Both I use to verify what we see in news or social media is realistically reported.

Coincidentally, one contact is quite valid for confirming the COVID-19 situation, his daughter who he loves dearly is a Federal Head of Emergency Medicine for a large segment covering some of the south eastern states. This is something that causes him significant stress, for good reason obviously.

He's told me this morning, evening his time, his daughter just rang as she does most nights and the widespread vaccination rate has seen new cases falling dramatically, hospital wards are no longer over-flowing. They've strategically targeted the most vulnerable with vaccine rollout, the relief in his voice is palpable. There is someway to go of course, but once hospitals are no longer over-loaded the death rate will plummet, it's all about how many and how fast!

Note to LP, we live in Australia.

Death rates due to overflowing hospitals are one thing. We don't have that here.

When i say the virus is basically dead here, its a relative term using places like the states as 'alive' comparison.

Our death rate is basically zero at the moment.....when people get out and about and spread it.....could it go back up....even if it is only to 5 or 10. Are they considered collateral damage for the greater good?

[Gointocarlton]

Note to LP, we live in Australia.

Death rates due to overflowing hospitals are one thing. We don't have that here.

When i say the virus is basically dead here, its a relative term using places like the states as 'alive' comparison.

Our death rate is basically zero at the moment.....when people get out and about and spread it.....could it go back up....even if it is only to 5 or 10. Are they considered collateral damage for the greater good?

To be clear, they only way it will be around and for it spread here, we first need to let it into the country correct? That is, returned travelers, sports people, airline staff etc.