Coronavirus (Covid19)

[stan]

How do we all think schools are going to go when they go back. Positive cases seem to be trending down at the moment and could mean we have past the peak.

Teachers want the school term to start 2 weeks late rather than the staggered approach.

[amber_fluid]

How do we all think schools are going to go when they go back. Positive cases seem to be trending down at the moment and could mean we have past the peak.

Teachers want the school term to start 2 weeks late rather than the staggered approach.

I’d rather 2 weeks later than a staggered start.
1 at home and 1 at school is just a pain in the arse for me.
Both or none.
Wait 2 more weeks and send them all back

[stan]

How do we all think schools are going to go when they go back. Positive cases seem to be trending down at the moment and could mean we have past the peak.

Teachers want the school term to start 2 weeks late rather than the staggered approach.

I’d rather 2 weeks later than a staggered start.
1 at home and 1 at school is just a pain in the arse for me.
Both or none.
Wait 2 more weeks and send them all back

Yeah I tend to agree with you about the staggered start. I'll have one at school and one at home as well and considering we have all just had Covid I'm keen for them to go to school.

The thing is at there age, they actually like school lol.

Ah what a time it was when you actually like school.

[Psyber]

This file helps with perspective.

CV deaths in UK.png

Certainly helps the perspective they want. It's called "fudging the data"

Instead of "Rate of death per 100,000 after testing positive for Covid-19 in the UK"
how about the data for: "Rate of death per 100,000 because of Covid-19 in the UK"

To put it into a better perspective, how about they also show the data for: "Rate of death per 100,000 from shotgun wounds / car accidents and also testing positive for Covid-19' in the UK"

One case (just like one pig) and the graph is not worth a pinch of $hit

We are now being told that ~50% of hospital admissions are people being admitted to hospital whilst having Covid; not because of it.

Give me the complete raw data and I'll prove anything you want.

Sure other health problems are always a factor in succumbing to Covid, or any other infective agent, and this is more likely to be a contributor in the elderly. However the chart lets you compare deaths for each age group among vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Death with Covid is always "with" - death with any disease is never the disease alone but a combination of the disease and the victim's vulnerabilities. Death is a result of combined effects and it is nit-picking to try to separate death with and death from. But the infection is the factor we have some hope of controlling and thus protecting the vulnerable.

[Jimmy_041]

This file helps with perspective.

CV deaths in UK.png

Certainly helps the perspective they want. It's called "fudging the data"

Instead of "Rate of death per 100,000 after testing positive for Covid-19 in the UK"
how about the data for: "Rate of death per 100,000 because of Covid-19 in the UK"

To put it into a better perspective, how about they also show the data for: "Rate of death per 100,000 from shotgun wounds / car accidents and also testing positive for Covid-19' in the UK"

One case (just like one pig) and the graph is not worth a pinch of $hit

We are now being told that ~50% of hospital admissions are people being admitted to hospital whilst having Covid; not because of it.

Give me the complete raw data and I'll prove anything you want.

Sure other health problems are always a factor in succumbing to Covid, or any other infective agent, and this is more likely to be a contributor in the elderly. However the chart lets you compare deaths for each age group among vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Death with Covid is always "with" - death with any disease is never the disease alone but a combination of the disease and the victim's vulnerabilities. Death is a result of combined effects and it is nit-picking to try to separate death with and death from. But the infection is the factor we have some hope of controlling and thus protecting the vulnerable.

It’s not nitpicking when you need to correct misrepresentations made by politicians to create obedience through fear

Some new data out of the UK

6,148 deaths (4%) of the 154k total Covid19 deaths had only Covid19 on death certificate

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transpar ... Mc-tC0JMDM

>166,000 UK people die of cancer every year

So, let’s pull apart another blatant political lie:
“This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated”!
If that is true, no vaccinated person should have Covid
I might add, it was not long ago they were telling us you were “fully protected” if vaccinated.
“Fully protected” was unconditional. It was an unconditional lie.

This pandemic has uncovered 2 particular scourges:
Politicians trying to cover up their ineptitude & trying to win political points to feather their own nest;
The media wanting to sell more copy through fear;
both at our expense

[DOC]

Being both a pedant and a nitpicker.

This pandemic has not uncovered two scourges of political incompetence and media fear. They already existed.

[Jimmy_041]

Being both a pedant and a nitpicker.

This pandemic has not uncovered two scourges of political incompetence and media fear. They already existed. Agreed

>166,000 UK people die of cancer every year should read >166,000 UK people die with cancer every year My point exactly. That's why I said it

I will only believe that politics is truly a civil service when the politicians are not paid other than for proven out of pocket expenses.
I know of no other industry where people can earn $200k - $300k, with no qualifications or experience, and worse still: no liability

[DOC]

Too quick for my edit.

[Mr Beefy]

This file helps with perspective.

CV deaths in UK.png

Hang on, the covid file was for 60 days, not a full year, so we need to divide our figure by 6 to know how many people aged 80+ are dying in a 60 day period - 1500.

It is for a 3 week period to November 21, 2021 not 60 days

[Trader]

Hang on, the covid file was for 60 days, not a full year, so we need to divide our figure by 6 to know how many people aged 80+ are dying in a 60 day period - 1500.

It is for a 3 week period to November 21, 2021 not 60 days

Good pick up, the caught covid within 60 days heading caught me out.

Ok, 21 days not 60 means 'expected' deaths should be 525 not 1500.

Still, the comparison still stands, Unvaccinated covid positive deaths of 161 is below the expected deaths of 525.

Taking raw stats and presenting them as justification for an argument (in the case of this graphic, pro-vaccination) without giving consideration as to if there is another reason for the difference, is dangerous.
The graphic presents a picture that vaccination is effective, when consideration of the data shows unvaccinated covid positive 80+ year olds dying at a lower rate than their negative colleagues, suggesting there is another factor at play.

In this instance, I believe the underlying health of individuals is a far bigger factor, rather than their vaccination status, or even covid positive/negative status.

[Trader]

The raw data being pushed by health officials, politicians and vaccine companies need to be taken with a grain of salt.

The raw data, fudged analysis or both?

I wouldn't trust anything being used at the moment
The inconsistencies are so blatant the information is a joke

I don't think they are fudging the raw data. I think the stats presented are accurate in terms of deaths with covid, in terms of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals etc.

What I do think however, is that they are being applied incorrectly. There is a strong bias from the medical and political fields trying to support the message that vaccination is our way through this.

Put it this way.
Lets say the government introduced a new policy tomorrow.
Anyone that is morbidly obese, has recently been through chemo, has had a heart or lung transplant in the past 12 months, or has a family history of chronic lung failure starting tomorrow can only wear black shirts.
Everyone else, you can wear whatever you want, black or coloured, no dramas.

Then in two months time, the government does an analysis on recent deaths.

Before the shirts policy came in, the scenario was that out of every 10,000 people, 20 would die in a two month period.
Now with the new shirts, they've found that 10 of the deaths were in coloured shirts, and 10 were in black shirts.

90% of the population wears a coloured shirt, and 10% of the population are in black, either by government direction, or cause they are an emo.

But deaths between coloured shirts and black shirts are even, despite coloured shirts outnumbering black shirts 9:1.

We've solved it, coloured shirts save lives!!!

If the government came out with this, everyone would laugh at them. It's silly to think that a coloured shirt made a difference.

Well you know what, the same thing's happening with the vacine.
All those with underlying health issues that used to be part of the entire population, have been pushed into a small sub-set called the unvaccinated. The death rates in this group exceed the remainder, because these people are unhealthy, not because they are unvaccinated.

Why do you think the 'success' rates of the vaccine are different in different countries?
Sure, minor differences could be explained by culture, lifestyle, diet, climate, etc, but we are seeing huge differences.

The stats produced in the graphic shows a roughly ratio between 3 and 4 (see third column in the below table), benefiting the vaccinated in the UK.

Looking at the 60 day stats.

18-29 - 0.1/0.3 - 3
30-40 - 0.3/1.1 - 3.6
40-50 - 1/3.6 - 3.6
50-60 - 2.2/13 - 5.9
60-70 - 7.8/32.8 - 4.2
70-80 - 21.1/69.3 - 3.3
80+ - 66.6/161 - 2.4

Where as in NSW, the government came out a few weeks ago and quoted the unvaxxed were 12.8 times more likely to end up in ICU than the vaccinated.

Why is the UK getting a benefit of 3-4 while NSW is getting 12.8?
Statistically it doesn't make sense to have such a huge difference between them.

What's actually happening is the same as the black shirts above. The chronically unhealthy, who can't get vaccinated are getting pushed into a smaller and smaller group. They are ending up in ICU or dying at excessive rates because of their existing health issues, not because of covid. (Sure, some die anyway, but the excess is what we are talking about here).

Look at the vaccination rate in the UK. Its 71.6%. Well that unvaccinated group, 28.4% now has all the chronic illness in it. So instead of being spread over 100 people, the ill are spread over just 28.4/ 100/28.4 = 3.52. Shock, their vaccine stats are coming out showing a benefit ratio of between 3 and 4.

In NSW, 92% fully vaxxed for 16 and older. The ill are spread amongst the 8% not the 100% anymore. 100/8 = 12.5, fairly bloody close to the 12.8 the NSW government released the other week.

The stats the government are putting out are real. The inference that it's the vaccine that's saving people, not underlying health issues isn't correct, in my opinion.

Hang on you say, but before we were vaccinated people were dying from/with covid at a much higher rate than they are now that the majority of the western world is vaccinated, it must be working!

No, you're comparing deaths from early strains with survival rates from omicron. The newer strain simply doesn't have the kick the original did. Death rates are decreasing because its a more mild virus, not because its of vaccination rates. (Once again, in my opinion).

I've said it before, people want a solution, doctors, scientist, politicians and the general public. But the stats don't support it. The current strategy isn't helping.
Being fit and healthy, getting a little bit of exercise each day and looking after your diet is a far better solution than a $200 shot in the arm every 3 months.

[Jimmy_041]

“Fudged” refers to the analysis not the raw data
You can make statistics say whatever you want them to

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”!

[locky801]

[Vamos]

Being both a pedant and a nitpicker.

This pandemic has not uncovered two scourges of political incompetence and media fear. They already existed. Agreed

>166,000 UK people die of cancer every year should read >166,000 UK people die with cancer every year My point exactly. That's why I said it

I will only believe that politics is truly a civil service when the politicians are not paid other than for proven out of pocket expenses.
I know of no other industry where people can earn $200k - $300k, with no qualifications or experience, and worse still: no liability

Should pay them more then, $200-300k isn't attracting the best people out of their respective industries to turn to politics.

[Jimmy_041]

Being both a pedant and a nitpicker.

This pandemic has not uncovered two scourges of political incompetence and media fear. They already existed. Agreed

>166,000 UK people die of cancer every year should read >166,000 UK people die with cancer every year My point exactly. That's why I said it

I will only believe that politics is truly a civil service when the politicians are not paid other than for proven out of pocket expenses.
I know of no other industry where people can earn $200k - $300k, with no qualifications or experience, and worse still: no liability

Should pay them more then, $200-300k isn't attracting enough of the best people out of their respective industries to turn to politics.

Remember when Weatherill justified a big increase on those grounds?
The monkeys just turned into pigs. Their only talent is self interest, although they are very good at sharing the trough around

No talented person will do it because of their childish behaviour

[DOC]

Pretty sure all parliamentary pay rises for the last 20 or so years have been set by an "independent" tribunal.

[Jimmy_041]

Pretty sure all parliamentary pay rises for the last 20 or so years have been set by an "independent" tribunal.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 363e7b8f03

[DOC]

Thanks for confirming my point.

[DOC]

FWIW, I would pay them at least double if not triple what they get.

[Jimmy_041]

Thanks for confirming my point.

And mine

BTW I didn’t say you were wrong