COVID-19 Health System Overload Forecaster
shortenism wrote:What educated person would willingly allow a Pfizer dose into themselves knowing Pfizer’s legal history? Would you buy a car off a company known to falsify, bribe officials and suppress safety data about their vehicles? Fk no surely.
I'm glad I made an educated decision then and got the Astra Zeneca shot. Looks like they have had some legal problems as well but not as bad as Pfizer so I guess I made the right choice. Your analogy is a bit like Volkswagen - lots of educated people still willingly buying their products. Or are you simply saying that uneducated people don't have the mental capacity to make the right decisions according to the Book Of Shortenism??
It is The Daily Mail, which is a shit newspaper, but the message is correct.
The unvaccinated will be a drain on QLD resources when we open. The selfish will be responsible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10107137/Top-doctor-warns-Queen...
A shit newspaper but the message is correct?? 'Top doctor blah blah'. Staple dose of fear and division. What else do you expect from the Daily Mail?
Well of course you choose your vacine based on the legal record of the company........the evidence about its saftey and effectiveness is much less inmportant ? ? ? ? ? ! # &n * # # ? ? ?
shortenism wrote:A shit newspaper but the message is correct?? 'Top doctor blah blah'. Staple dose of fear and division. What else do you expect from the Daily Mail?
You didn’t answer the question. Are you going to travel in a plane in the future? I ask this out of concern due to Boeing and their past history on suppressing software data. And planes falling out of the sky?
Or did you ignore it, because you realise how stupid you sound with dumb analogies?
Educated vs non-educated doesn't mean anything really. In fact most educated folk (including me) probably suffer from being indoctrinated into formation from in-formation.
Ah the plane question.. I'm off to the airport tomorrow.
Dumb analogy? Hang on haven't you been throwing around the seatbelt one on here before?
"Educated vs non-educated doesn't mean anything really."
Yeh why not equal opportunity for the uneducated! Why can't they be doctors and engineers and stuff like that, it's just prejudice! Ha ha ha ha. Great stuff shortenism. The forums could do with more quality humour.
Where are you off to Shorto?
OS?
No need for details, just curious.
Oh Shorty..proving stupidity is a strong trait yet again. You can’t have it both ways…FK no surely? Hypocrite much?…..Fk yes surely.
blindboy wrote:"Educated vs non-educated doesn't mean anything really."
Yeh why not equal opportunity for the uneducated! Why can't they be doctors and engineers and stuff like that, it's just prejudice! Ha ha ha ha. Great stuff shortenism. The forums could do with more quality humour.
So, by that comment BB, are you saying that if you aren't considered educated, you can't go on to great things?
Have you heard of Charlie Veron?
Maybe watch the below and re-think that belittling statement of yours.
https://www.abc.net.au/austory/the-godfather-of-coral/13565118
I think Dr Veron might not like being labelled uneducated, but you make a very good point in drawing attention to the fact that formal education does not suit everyone. These days it is a lot easier for those who want to do it their own way. That said I stand by my point it might not matter how you get it, but education does matter.
I never labelled him uneducated, they are your words.
Another child that very nearly fell through the cracks of the "education" system.
The two richest (self made, not inherited) guys I know both left school in fifth form and went to work, one as a panel beater the other installing kitchens. Multi, multi fucken millionaires now both in their 60's.
adam12 wrote:The two richest (self made, not inherited) guys I know both left school in fifth form and went to work, one as a panel beater the other installing kitchens. Multi, multi fucken millionaires now both in their 60's.
Money = smart?
BB - You are in fine form again today -"Well of course you choose your vacine based on the legal record of the company........the evidence about its saftey and effectiveness is much less inmportant ? ? ? ? ? ! # &n * # # ? ? ?"
The company has a terrible legal record as their safety , effectiveness of certain drugs were crap . They then heavily and falsely promoted these products .
What vaccine did you have ? I think I know .
You were obviously not an English teacher as the spelling above is as poor as your judgement .
Maybe take some time to do a spell check which might also give you a moment to review your comments and not post garbage .
....but would you call them uneducated? Lots of people who leave school early go on to become highly educated either formally or informally. You don't make millions without a lot of learning along the way. My daughter left school half way through year 10 and went on to get a nursing degree and may yet qualify as a doctor. I have known a lot of people with no formal qualifications who were highly educated across many fields. On the other hand, in my profession, it was not unusual to find characters who had done a degree 20 or 30 years earlier......and learnt nothing since.
Hutchy 19 wrote:BB - You are in fine form again today -"Well of course you choose your vacine based on the legal record of the company........the evidence about its saftey and effectiveness is much less inmportant ? ? ? ? ? ! # &n * # # ? ? ?"
The company has a terrible legal record as their safety , effectiveness of certain drugs were crap . They then heavily and falsely promoted these products .
What vaccine did you have ? I think I know .
You were obviously not an English teacher as the spelling above is as poor as your judgement .
Maybe take some time to do a spell check which might also give you a moment to review your comments and not post garbage .
Yet own post omits commas and other errors. Dumb dumb dumb :)
Roadkill - so funny ,,,, I miss a comma but you miss a whole word . YOUR are dumber than I am .
Hutchy 19 wrote:Roadkill - so funny ,,,, I miss a comma but you miss a whole word . YOUR are dumber than I am .
I am not the one belittling someone for their spelling, you are.
I don't give a shit if i make a spelling error..lol.
And it's more than a comma...sentences don't even make sense.
You want to call someone out? atleast make your callout 100% accurate.
Roady -"I don't give a shit if i make a spelling error..lol."
You are such hypocrite . You don't give a shit about your spelling but do give a shit and call me out if I miss a comma .
Hutchy 19 wrote:Roady -"I don't give a shit if i make a spelling error..lol."
You are such hypocrite . You don't give a shit about your spelling but do give a shit and call me out if I miss a comma .
No, I'm calling you out for criticizing someones spelling, yet you also make errors.
I don't care about anyone making spelling errors, but you used spelling as a putdown. You really are too stupid to understand how stupid it makes you look.
"YOUR are dumber than I am"
Should be "You're dumber than I am". You really do not want to go down the road of picking spelling and grammar errors Hutchy. It will not end well for you.
Hutchy looks like Urbn surf is opening back up soon, have you got a session booked?
No I haven't - thanks for the tip ! Have a session in the bank due to covid .
The water would be freezing ( 12-15 ? ) and my pop ups are down . Need to do a lot of work on this .
I bet the water is nice in your neck of the woods !
Getting back into golf as have an annual boys trip in Nov . Heading to Yarrawonga this year .
blindboy wrote:The data on that isn't in yet but it is possible that the impact would be similar. .
Cheers.
Hope it works like that.
It may be more useful in designing the next generation of vaccines. Regardless of the immunity it produces it will never be worth catching covid to achieve it.
In time I would fairly confident that the effect can be produced by a vaccine that contains either a different antigen or a combination of them.
It would be a huge advantage in places like Indonesia though if getting exposed to Covid after being vaccinated acts like a boaster otherwise it's going to be a logistic nightmare and costly to keep trying to get boaster shots into people, i think it would be hard even convincing many to keep getting a boaster.
But if being exposed once vaccinated acts like a boaster it will be a huge plus, and with each wave people would get better immunity.
Apparently in March this year 44% of people in Jakarta already had Covid anti bodies and that was before the big Covid wave in July that swept through Java and other areas.
Maybe with so much of the population getting exposed to Covid before the vaccine and maybe after it could be a huge bonus for Indo in the long run.
Very true Indo. Let's hope it works for everyone.
Kind of nice to find something we agree on :D
Yeh our views have generally had a large overlap on covid. This morning's news on the Nature newsletter is not so good for Indonesia and other places that are hoping immunity from previous infection will be effective in the longer term.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02825-8?utm_source=Nature+Bri...
Interesting to watch the UK vs Japan, both of which opened up. UK opens and no one gives a shit about masks or distancing or any other safety measure...it just woohoo we are free, lets go get pissed and fall over each other. Japan, a compliant country that continues to distance, wears masks and generally does the right thing to minimise transmission.
I think Aus will follow the UK's lead.
Plenty of scientists actually saying that natural immunity is the strongest , most long lasting and best .
Constantly loading the body with drugs every few months actually weakens the body’s natural immune system.
In S.A they are now fining people 20k for doing an antibody test. Huh? Why?
Big pharma stranglehold for future booster controls?
"Plenty of scientists actually saying that natural immunity is the strongest....."
Like to name a few or provide a link to support that view?
saltyone wrote:Plenty of scientists actually saying that natural immunity is the strongest , most long lasting and best .
Constantly loading the body with drugs every few months actually weakens the body’s natural immune system.In S.A they are now fining people 20k for doing an antibody test. Huh? Why?
Big pharma stranglehold for future booster controls?
Feel free to post evidence that plenty of scientists are saying that.
Again, post up evidence that GPs are receiving fines up to $20k for doing antibody test. There is old articles from April talking about possible fines, but nothing since. I can't find anything that shows fines have been issued.
An update for anyone interested .
Authored by David Henderson and Charles Hopper via The American Institute for Economic Research,
On July 28, the Wall Street Journal ran our article “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?”
In it, we outlined the potential value of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin for Covid-19, and we questioned the FDA’s vigorous attack on ivermectin. Many people praised us and many criticized us. We had clearly covered a sensitive subject. It didn’t help that one of the studies we referenced was retracted the day our article was published. Within hours of learning that fact, we sent a mea culpa to the Journal’s editors. They acted quickly, adding a note at the end of the electronic version and publishing our letter. It’s important to address two criticisms of our work. The first is that we exaggerated the FDA’s warning on ivermectin. The second is that Merck’s stance on ivermectin proved that even the company that developed ivermectin thought that it doesn’t work for Covid-19.
First, we didn’t exaggerate the FDA’s warning on ivermectin.
Instead, the agency changed its website after our article was published, probably to reflect the points we made.
Second, Merck had two incentives to downplay ivermectin’s usefulness against the novel coronavirus.
We’ll explain both points more fully.
Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Hooper) worked there years ago. Dr. William C. Campbell and Professor Satoshi Omura were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. They earned it for discovering and developing avermectin. Later Campbell and some associates modified avermectin to create ivermectin. Merck & Co. has donated four billion doses of ivermectin to prevent river blindness and other diseases in areas of the world, such as Africa, where parasites are common. The ten doctors who are in the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance call ivermectin “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.” Ivermectin is on the WHO’s List of Essential Medicines and ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children, and infants.
Ivermectin is an antiparasitic, but it has shown, in cell cultures in laboratories, the ability to destroy 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. Further, ivermectin has demonstrated its potential in clinical trials for the treatment of Covid-19 and in large-scale population studies for the prevention of Covid-19.
Contradicting these positive results, the FDA issued a special statement warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent Covid-19.” The FDA’s warning, which included language such as, “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death,” and “highly toxic,” might suggest that the FDA was warning against pills laced with poison. In fact, the FDA had already approved the drug years ago as a safe and effective anti-parasitic. Why would it suddenly become dangerous if used to treat Covid-19? Further, the FDA claimed, with no scientific basis, that ivermectin is not an antiviral, notwithstanding its proven antiviral activity.
Interestingly, at the bottom of the FDA’s strong warning against ivermectin was this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Was this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.
After some critics claimed that we overstated or overreacted to the FDA’s special warning, we reviewed the FDA’s website and found that it had been changed, and there was no mention of the changes nor any reason given. Overall, the warnings were watered down and clarified. We noticed the following changes:
The false statement that “Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses)” was removed.
“Taking a drug for an unapproved use can be very dangerous. This is true of ivermectin, too” was changed to the less alarming “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications.” (Indications is the official term used in the industry to denote new uses for a drug, such as new diseases or conditions, and/or new patient populations.)
The statement, “If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed,” was changed to, “If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.” This more clearly acknowledges that reasonable physicians may prescribe ivermectin for non-FDA-approved uses, such as Covid-19.
The ending statement about masks, spacing, hand washing, and avoiding crowds was replaced with one that recommended getting vaccinated and following CDC guidelines.
The reasonable statement “Talk to your health care provider about available COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options. Your provider can help determine the best option for you, based on your health history” was added at the end.
The new warning from the FDA is more correct and less alarming than the previous one.
In a statement from February, Merck, the company that originated and still sells ivermectin, agreed with the FDA that ivermectin should not be used for Covid-19.
“We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.”
To some, this appeared to be a smoking gun. Merck wants to make money, they reason, and people are interested in using ivermectin for Covid-19, therefore, Merck would warn against such usage only if the scientific evidence were overwhelming. But that’s not how the pharmaceutical industry works.
Here’s how the FDA-regulated pharmaceutical industry really works.
The FDA judges all drugs as guilty until proven, to the FDA’s satisfaction, both safe and efficacious. By what process does this happen? The FDA waits for a deep-pocketed sponsor to present a comprehensive package that justifies the approval of a new drug or a new use of an existing drug. For a drug like ivermectin, long since generic, a sponsor may never show up. The reason is not that the drug is ineffective; rather, the reason is that any expenditures used to secure approval for that new use will help other generic manufacturers that haven’t invested a dime. Due to generic drug substitution rules at pharmacies, Merck could spend millions of dollars to get a Covid-19 indication for ivermectin and then effectively get zero return. What company would ever make that investment?
With no sponsor, there is no new FDA-approved indication and, therefore, no official recognition of ivermectin’s value. Was the FDA’s warning against ivermectin based on science? No. It was based on process. Like a typical bureaucrat, the FDA won’t recommend the use of ivermectin because, while it might help patients, such a recommendation would violate its processes. The FDA needs boxes checked off in the right order. If a sponsor never shows up and the boxes aren’t checked off, the FDA’s standard approach is to tell Americans to stay away from the drug because it might be dangerous or ineffective. Sometimes the FDA is too enthusiastic and these warnings are, frankly, alarming. Guilty until proven innocent.
There are two reasons that Merck would warn against ivermectin usage, essentially throwing its own drug under the bus.
Once they are marketed, doctors can prescribe drugs for uses not specifically approved by the FDA. Such usage is called off-label. Using ivermectin for Covid-19 is considered off-label because that use is not specifically listed on ivermectin’s FDA-approved label.
While off-label prescribing is widespread and completely legal, it is illegal for a pharmaceutical company to promote that use. Doctors can use drugs for off-label uses and drug companies can supply them with product. But heaven forbid that companies encourage, support, or promote off-label prescribing. The fines for doing so are outrageous. During a particularly vigorous two-year period, the Justice Department collected over $6 billion from drug companies for off-label promotion cases. Merck’s lawyers haven’t forgotten that lesson.
Another reason for Merck to discount ivermectin’s efficacy is a result of marketing strategy. Ivermectin is an old, cheap, off-patent drug. Merck will never make much money from ivermectin sales.
Drug companies aren’t looking to spruce up last year’s winners; they want new winners with long patent lives.
Not coincidentally, Merck recently released the clinical results for its new Covid-19 fighter, molnupiravir, which has shown a 50% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death among high-risk, unvaccinated adults. Analysts are predicting multi-billion-dollar sales for molnupiravir.
Geez who to believe. Medical experts or the Libertarian (don't) think tank sponsored by Koch, tobacco companies and the fossil fuel sector?
Hurtchy, You are so easily played by the big end of town, it's not even remotely funny.
Vic - don't care really . I have had a vax and hope I don't need treatment for covid .
Read the article which gave some facts I thought interesting .
FDA's actions . How the drug is off patent so a drug company makes no money from it (which I already know how this process works ) . Places like India can make off patent drugs at a fraction of the cost of US companies .
There is no bigger end of town than Drug companies which seem to be playing you like a violin . You should change jobs and work in their sales department .
All the spruiking you are doing should be paid for .
"Read the article which gave some facts I thought interesting"
Aren't you a trusting soul. Do ya reckon the people who fund these think tanks influence the writing?
"All the spruiking you are doing should be paid for ."
What kinda like The American Institute for Economic Research? If only I was a pro-spruiker like that mob. Do you think the fossil fuel lobby would pay for my opinions on climate change?
"Vic - don't care really"
No you just post misinformation to get attention...presumably.
There's two types of misinformation spreaders:
1 - They have no level of expertise/involvement in the field, and find the alternative view 'interesting' and 'worth a read/thinking about'. They love throwing a few open ended comments and dumb questions in the mix which they've picked up from the type 2. misinformation spreaders (unfortunately, these dumb questions aren't always easily answered - but it doesn't escape the fact that they're dumb questions) and generally operate by collecting a few half truths. They love ending their misinformation pieces with 'let that sink in'. These people are generally uneducated (or poorly educated) because education typically sets people up for a lifetime of critical analysis/thinking and cognitive skills, which by entertaining such ideas to the extent of actually sharing it for no real gain - they clearly lack.
2. They have some level of expertise and involvement in the field. They are actually quite smart and cunning individuals, who are either blinded by their own greed or are so far up the arse of their overlord (i.e. the person/group/corporation who's bankrolling them) they actually semi believe they're doing the right thing by sprouting their BS. They're good communicators, written/verbal/presenting, and are well versed in public relations/marketing. They fall short in actual scientific performance but that doesn't matter - they're not trying to convince smart people. They may be doing it directly for financial reasons, or for political reasons.
So.....have we got any type 2's on SN?
Vic - You are right that the oil industry fund people to argue their case .
I also know whenever there is huge money or power at stake that others do to .
The Drug companies are about the best at doing it . The Climate Change industry come in a close second . Oil industry find it difficult to find a newspaper or any media who will publish their story so not so much . Same with tobacco and alcohol . Governments are really good at it .
It is how the world goes round and has been happening for centuries . It's called propaganda .
I am not a trusting soul at all as I have a fair idea how the system works .
outlaw?
outlawed...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/connecticut-teacher-of-the-year-faces-termina...
I know, its fox news... and it's america...
but you've really gotta wonder if all this heavy handedness is worth losing often what is the best and brightest, from fields where its difficult to find the mildly conpetent...
"Japan, a compliant country that continues to distance, wears masks and generally does the right thing to minimise transmission.
I think Aus will follow the UK's lead."
yep, that's us...
sadly
'she'll be right'
until winter 2022...
So Hutchy 19, you're running the "poor oil industry is the victim" line. Yeah, good luck with that champ.
Be interesting to see how many teachers go Syppo.
At my daughters school, just one, who is a casual supply teacher.
Education wonk on the radio the other day (ABC North Coast) said 96% of teachers already double vaxxed.
I bet that 4% is in Mullum.
Vic - you love to misrepresent me . "you're running the "poor oil industry is the victim" line."
Never said this and don't believe it .
Do you understand that propaganda is everywhere and that Drug companies do it ?
I don't believe in misrepresenting you so would like to hear it from the horses mouth .
( I like metaphors and can use them till the cows come home ! )
How about helping BB understand the meaning of net zero on the Climate change thread ?
"Be interesting to see how many teachers go Syppo.
At my daughters school, just one, who is a casual supply teacher.
Education wonk on the radio the other day (ABC North Coast) said 96% of teachers already double vaxxed.
I bet that 4% is in Mullum."
well that doesn't sound significant, especially for north coast...
but yeh, still can be hard to find teachers, even average ones
i know that meme about unvaxxed nurses was only met with the usual triggered angry man abuse...
the one about nurses working (and surviving) through the true emergency phase of the pandemic unvaxxed due to necessity... only to now, get the sack due to mandatory vax policy... but to me... that shit is brutal, and a next level level of unfairness never seen before
you'd be pissed to be in their shoes
I've created a spreadsheet forecast which I'll update as we go..
There's also a website with live running data.. https://sites.google.com/view/stayhomeaustralia