Albert
-
Posts
5,085 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Albert
-
-
2 hours ago, TexasRam said:
We can have as many cases as you like (which apparently now is the new go to measure) hospitalisations and deaths still remain low even 6 weeks after this new variant hit our shores. Maybe if we stop locking people up with no more than a cold then the services wouldn’t be in such a mess. A complete over reaction to something that originally was not even harmful to the mass population and now is even less so through vaccination, natural immunity and a weakened virus. Time to stop testing, stop self isolation and live with this like we do every other virus.
I left this thread months ago as it was just nonstop madness, but my word, it just keeps going.
This approach would mean that they're treating it with less significance than even the flu, which they do test for, and do report on the numbers for still. Bizarre.
Realistically, the issue with omicron is the shear scale of infections. Hospitalisation rate is down for it, as are deaths, but the shear number of infections more than makes up for it.
Honestly, I suspect the UK will do better out of this than Australia, as there are high rates of historic infection, and there has been some effort to deal with things throughout. Honestly, Scomo just forced stuff open with no plan, and is basically now daily saying 'we never could have known it would be like this'.
The one to look out for with it though is because omicron hospitalises less, what tends to happen is that hospisations hold steady for a bit while omicron cases climb, then eventually the hospitalisations start climbing too. For South Australia and New South Wales, which are driven pretty much by omicron, hospitalisations are doubling every 4-5 days. Victoria saw a period of flat hospitalisations, which are now starting to rise, as omicron has become the dominant variant. This is seen in the UK already, with hospitalisations in England now above the November pre-lockdown peak, and rising. Hopefully, it doesn't get to the January peak.
I think we can be somewhat hopeful that the UK can ride this out. South Australia is a mess though. The incompetence of the current government is being highlighted dramatically. Their preparation was sorely lacking, and the health system is already showing signs of serious trouble. No idea what'll happen here in the coming weeks, but some of the modelling is suggesting a peak here of around the third week of January. I guess that's a positive with omicron, things are happening so far that the peak shouldn't be that far off.
- GboroRam and ariotofmyown
-
2
-
1 hour ago, i-Ram said:
How’s it going down under @Albert?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/04/a-shambolic-mess-the-only-example-australia-is-giving-the-world-now-is-how-not-to-manage-covidp.s. Spare me any cricket news.
Poorly, as predicted on here ages back, Morrison's relentless pressure to 'let it rip' finally won out, and the country is a mess. Where I am, SA, has seen the government moved from relentlessly following the health advice, and having the fastest growing economy in the country, to ignoring it, letting omicron in, and now having the fastest growing outbreak instead. A lot of people are losing work, and businesses are closing voluntarily, with very little government support as 'it's not a lockdown'.
Omicron is mild, but our health system can barely handle a windy day. Government isn't really doing anything anymore, people can't get tested though, so growth of cases is slightly depressed.
Government is trying to offload as many cases from hospitals as possible, but isn't really helping as they're doubling more than once a week anyhow. They're going to redefine what it means to have Covid in hospital soon too, even though if you're positive, you need to be treated as such under our rules. That's make the numbers a few days smaller though.
So yeah, I'd argue that saying Australia is a shambolic mess is probably about right. We prepared to 'live with delta', but omicron is so far out of our planning. It being milder isn't helping, as the case numbers are well in excess of 10 times what we were planning for, and could peak out closer to 100 times that.
Also, I know you said no cricket, but Sydney is going to get drenched the next few days. England's team selections might have been rubbish for this test, but I'd be surprised if we got through more than 1-2 sessions at most. 5-0 is almost certainly gone.
Edit: Also, our Prime Minister has pretty much said they're not providing free rapid tests as to 'not undercut the market'. So instead, there's basically none in the whole country, and the ones that are there are being sold at a 200%+ mark-up.
Morrison is very unpopular right now.
-
Honestly, I think we have a much better chance than most realise.
I know it's not everyone's favourite, but looking at the deduction as a 'per game' thing, we're more like on 20 points. We're in the drop on that, but far from dead, and I'd argue we've been in worse positions.
Fiddling about with some old models I used gives us around a 30% chance of surviving, while more sophisticated analyses like FiveThirtyEight's gives it to be more like 24%.
Relegation remains the most likely outcome, but with a good run at some point, and maintaining our standards otherwise, we could well pull off the miracle.
-
Today certainly helps.
We're now on 10 points, but really, spreading that points deduction as a 'per game' thing, we're, for the sake of comparison, really on 20.
It's still a long way to go, and we need a good run to get us closer to wiping out the deficit, but really, we're doing far better than seemed possible already.
-
Somehow, we're still alive and kicking, despite it all.
Prorating the points deduction, we're really on 17.5 points right now, which isn't great, but we're still in with a chance to pull of something incredible.
FiveThirtyEight give us a 15% chance of staying up, which seem fair.
-
The way I tend to look at this is by looking at our 21 point deduction over the whole season, rather than a lump sum. Think of it as amoritising the deduction, the straight line method, of course.
Anyhow, on current points, this is the bottom 5 using this method:
20. Cardiff 18
21. Reading 17
22. Peterborough 15
23. Derby 13.3
24. Barnsley 11
We're not well placed, we're basically 4 points below where we'd be on 'par' for survival, but the situation looks more manageable at the very least.
The thought linked to this is that usually 1 point per game is enough for survival, so the relegation battle can be seen as:
Win: +2 points v rivals
Draw: no change
Loss: -1 point v rivals
When averaged over time. The points deduction is basically making it so the above is the same, but minus 0.46 points per game, ie:
Win: +1.54 v rivals
Draw: -0.46 v rivals
Loss: -1.46 v rivals
So really, we need about 3 wins to put ourselves on par, then maintain about 1.5 points per game from there. It's not impossible, but takes so doing. Honestly, it's doable if we can survive January. A new owner before then, and not losing any key players and there is a real chance of the miracle. I'd say only about 1 in 4, but still...
-
3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:
The administrators job is purely to achieve the best outcome for the creditors, nothing more nothing less.
They will have had to weigh up whether saving a few admin jobs or, if feasible, maintaining our position in The Championship is going to be the best outcome for the creditors.
One outcome could give us £6m extra income, one saves us £300k.
It would be a dereliction of duty not to try and get the points deduction overturned if there is any chance of it happening.
In a sense, just going by those numbers, even if there's a 1/20 chance of the appeal being successful, and those gained points being what gives us safety, the appeal has an expected payoff of £0. Realistically, the chances of success are likely far more than that, making it a worthwhile venture in that sense.
-
Honestly, the worst we've ever had. We're in a financial hole, and are down on assets, the club being in its weakest ever position. He gambled on the Premier League, but did so with the club's future, not his. It's also hard to be angry at the EFL when this is the ultimate outcome, and the entire point of all the rules and regulations is to help prevent these moments.
I should add that, to be fair, I've never really been much of a fan of him, and felt that his tenure has been a chaotic mess from top to bottom, best seen through how we've dealt with managers.
Let's hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel to all of this. Ultimately, I think Mel has indeed gotten us out of the Championship, and for a long time. The issue was the direction.
- Jayram, GboroRam and r_wilcockson
-
3
-
Realistically, if the referee were competent yesterday that would have been a convincing win. Bar a crazy 11 minutes of injury time against Peterborough, there's not a lot else to talk about on this.
-
What a goal from Lawrence there.
-
4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:
Where is the proof that you are going to harm someone?
Surely you'd need to prove someone actually had Covid first?
Then where is the proof that if you have Covid that you are going to pass it on?
Where do we draw the line?
Are you selfish and have no empathy if you go out in a car, knowing that you run the risk of killing people by running them over or in a traffic accident?
The point is that if you're not vaccinated, it's easier for you to be part of the chain that leads to harm to others. Being vaccinated, hence, reduces everyone else's risk. The same goes for all restrictions, as they are all reducing risk. You need to see it more as reducing risk of transmission, than it being about who specifically did the transmitting.
If you are in a car accident, it is only the people in the cars that are injured, but with Covid, it keeps getting passed on; car accidents aren't infectious.
-
9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:
Less than 6000 in hospital, compared to 40000 at the peak, and admissions remaining pretty flat.
The only thing that confidence may drop in now is the effectiveness of the vaccine but given that 80% of the adult population have done all they can, I do not see consumer confidence changing much now, a good measure of this would be how many people are continuing to wear masks and let me tell you, its not many.
As seen in the pandemic, it goes cases, hospitalisations, deaths. Cases had a bit of a downturn before fully opening up, and are now trending back up. Hospitalisations have flattened slightly, but are looking like climbing again. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like the cycle is set to repeat.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:I'm not the one suggesting you do that. Mark McGowan is suggesting you might keep some restrictions even after hitting your 80% vaccination target.
Mark McGowan isn't sold on the idea that NSW will actually keep their end of the bargain and crush the current outbreak. In that scenario, they really can't.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:So you're alright, thats fine then. Other parts of Australia are living under different conditions and have suffered 100+ day lockdowns.
Yep. NSW's situation, however, is entirely a result of government incompetence, trying to play politics with a virus, rather than following the lead of the rest of the country. It hurts, but it was entirely avoidable, hence why lockdowns etc tend to be so popular here.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:If most people are not concerned about having the military police your streets, public health orders redrafted to favour the police not the public, drones watching over you, spot checks whilst in your own home, excessive fines for having an opinion or protesting against Govt policy etc then it will be very interesting to see where you are in 12 months time.
Whilst I know China - Australia relations aren't great atm, it is funny to see China calling out Australia for their authoritarian restrictions;
It will be interesting to see where this all ends up. The idea that universally there is this eroding of rights though is quite wide of the mark. NSW, which is run very poorly, and the closest aligned with the likes of the current UK government, are the ones doing all the things you're bringing up here though. The irony is they did most of these things to avoid having to do a full lockdown, trying to do a light touch one, then scaring people into cooperating, while having loose rules, LGA specific orders, etc.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:She wasn't driving a stolen car though was she, she was in her own home protesting an anti-lockdown protest online. Is protesting the Govt illegal now?
Organising and promoting illegal gathers, ie conspiring to break the lockdown rules, is illegal.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:So is Swedens and they are hovering around 0 daily deaths now.
There's always been a lag between cases and deaths, and their cases are climbing again.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:What about to enter a nightclub, a pub or a football match? What about attending educational facilities? What about to enter a supermarket or use public transport? If you want to travel abroad to a country with 'disease X' then thats your personal choice. I shouldn't need to show my papers to travel around locally.
There are jobs that require vaccination even now in most countries. Seems perfectly reasonable, as long as there are provisions for genuine medical exceptions.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:TBH this debate could carry on, I don't know what will happen in Australia, I'm thousands of miles away and have never been (unlikely to go now as well cos you've shut up shop ?) but it will be interesting to see where we all are in a years time.
I wonder whether we'll have our freedoms back and have returned to pre-pandemic life or whether we'll be living under some kind of track and trace regime that will imho almost certainly evolve over time to become ever more authoritarian - all for our benefit and protection of course...
It's interesting to suggest that these restrictions are good for governments. There's a reason most countries were super soft about them, and even in countries like Australia the cheapskates like NSW were reluctant to use them. Governments aren't gaining anything from them, they're expensive and tedious to run. I don't see them having any real use for them, at least in their current form, at the end of this. We already give the World enough personal information for far easier means of surveillance and control, if their aim was using such for authoritarianism, they wouldn't need to be using the kinds of systems they have now.
9 hours ago, maxjam said:Why is that a problem?
Anyone that wants the jab has almost certainly had it by now. Unless we mandate people have to be vaccinated life must go ahead and some people will die. The alternative is was remain locked down forever. Mass vaccinate for covid and flu every year. Ban smoking and alcohol and set up some kind of 'National Socialist League of the Reich for Physical Exercise'.
Surely people have to be free to live life as they choose? If they don't want to get vaccinated, drink or smoke themselves into an early grave then ultimately that is their choice.
There do exist people who can't get vaccines, for for whom they simply aren't effective. For that reason, getting a close to a fully vaccinated population as possible is important. It is interesting seeing people willing to pay for their 'freedom' with other people's lives though.
-
Just now, G STAR RAM said:
Can only talk for our business (leisure and tourism), the seaside towns are packed out, revenues up by about 40%, all of this despite being massively understaffed due to the pingdemic.
They should be at the moment given the initial mood around opening up, and the messaging around it, but the overall measure of consumer confidence will be what follows this, particularly while hospital beds, etc, are filling again.
-
12 minutes ago, maxjam said:
I'm not sure anyone is pouncing gleefully tbh. I might be giving Albert a poke in a ribs as is customary between the Poms and the Aussies but there is no doubting they have had great success in keeping their covid deaths low - however it is also not unfair to question at what cost.
The cost was our economy being one of the best performing globally.
12 minutes ago, maxjam said:This article was from January this year, and the Australian Govt has since introduced increasingly draconian measures...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-risks-to-australias-democracy/
And tbf, I share similar concerns about the UK regarding the potential introduction of vaccine passports.
Bit of a weird article, that seems to lack an understanding for how Australia's political system actually functions. That's not really the topic of this thread though.
I do like the idea of vaccine passports being seen as a thin end of the wedge for some kind of attack on democracy, given that vaccine requirements for travel, etc, existed long before the pandemic in many regions, etc.
-
42 minutes ago, maxjam said:
Exactly, and we're opening back up. At some point you have to either live with the risks of covid or live with live under restriction. Australia will have to come to that conclusion at some point as well.
At some point shouldn't mean while 40% of your population remains vulnerable I wouldn't think.
Ironically, of course, the whole point of Covid-zero is that we're really not living under much in the way of restrictions at all. The UK, on the other hand, is 'out of restrictions', but consumer confidence, etc, will take a hit for years to come, particularly given cases, hospitalisations, and deaths are climbing again sadly.
42 minutes ago, maxjam said:A lot of people did vote for the nazi's though, approx 20% - but it was just a general point, people do vote for oppressive regimes and authoriarian regimes are very good at silencing the voice of dissenters.
Honestly, a similar number of people in many countries are voting that way even now. It wasn't a vote for an oppressively regime though, it was a vote for an ideological group.
People aren't being oppressed by asking for restrictions, it is they themselves putting them there. Oppression is where it is being done to control the population, as opposed to being done by the population to fight a common foe.
I do find it funny that the Murdoch propaganda machine is so wedded to this narrative though.
42 minutes ago, maxjam said:Nutters because you don't agree with them? A quick google search returned numerous articles re. protests and rising resentment in Australia - as there are in many countries tbh.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sydney-australia-anti-lockdown-protests-b1889736.html
The polls, etc, don't back that position. Every society has fringe elements, but on the ground, and through the polls, it damn clear that Covid-zero has broad wide reaching support here.
...and yes, I would argue that people who march the streets claiming that lockdowns, vaccines, etc don't work, while waving Q Anon flags, etc, are nutters. I would argue that people who literally try to pick fights with police horses are nutters. I would argue that people, committing crimes on cameras, but out of spite are not wearing face coverings, likely the only time in their lives they'd do such a thing without one, are nutters.
42 minutes ago, maxjam said:I'm glad that everyone is settling into their new normal of being watched over by the military, having drones patrolling the skies, being subject to random spot checks in your house and being subject large fines if you reach the end of your tether and dare to go outside to sit in the park. Must be lovely ?
No military here.
The point in NSW is that the defense forces are assisting the police etc. It's not armed military forces marching the streets.
42 minutes ago, maxjam said:Lets not forget the arrest of a pregnant woman in front of her children for daring to promote an anti-lockdown protest online;
Yes, committing crimes gets you arrested. Funny that.
42 minutes ago, maxjam said:Or Facebook posts that can cost you $11k fines;
https://au.news.yahoo.com/facebook-post-lockdown-protest-11000-fine-080358345.html
Its no wonder most people are happy with restrictions, the gestapo will be round for you if you object ?
The larger fines, etc, have broad support, as again, people aren't fans of selfish actions. Societies bring in such laws, as societies make decisions about how they are governed. It's hardly complicated.
Imagine people questioning other laws by similar arguments.
"Watch this video of police arresting a mother in front of her children just for driving a stolen car?! WHAT IS SOCIETY COMING TO?!"
25 minutes ago, Eddie said:It amazes me how the 'Deflecticons' pounce gleefully on ANY news about Australian lockdowns, the different approach taken in the antipodes compared to our own, citing deaths and damage to the economy when, during the entire 18 months of the pandemic, Australia and New Zealand lost fewer lives in total than we did on any single day in January this year, when we were running at an average of 1,000 deaths per day. It's the same with cases - the total number of cases in both countries in all are still fewer than 40,000 - a number comparable to our current daily rate.
It's like how the then American president was seemingly gleeful discussing the news of New Zealand's Covid-free run breaking last year, basically discussing it like their Covid-zero days were over. They were wrong, of course, but it's an interesting attitude.
23 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:According to Google, Australia has had 38k cases in total, the UK had pretty much double that in 1 day.
Comparison is futile.
...mostly because the UK just kept letting it burn through. Per capita, the Victorian outbreak was the equivalent of about 6000 per day in the UK, which the UK has been under many times since the first wave. The UK could have gone down the same road, it chose not to.
- JoetheRam and ariotofmyown
-
2
-
1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:
Thats because Australia have never had many cases.
A Covid zero in the UK does not protect livelihoods, as we have already seen.
We have had some fairly sizeable outbreaks actually. The difference was that we stuck to this approach, rather than chickening out and sacrificing people instead.
-
3 minutes ago, maxjam said:
Unless you remain locked down forever though there will always be cases and there will always be deaths - 100s of them, as there are with flu.
The point with Australia's approach is that you can open up once people are vaccinated, which will suppress spread without the need of broad lockdowns, etc.
Interesting to talk about '100s of deaths' given the UK is running at over 1000 in less than 2 weeks.
3 minutes ago, maxjam said:It may only be half as likely, but vaccinated people are still catching and passing on covid to others. At some point covid will spread throughout Australia and people will die unless you are happy to live life under permanent restrictions.
The longterm picture is still developing, but again, the aim is to control the disease for the the time being, get everyone vaccinated, then move away from using lockdowns, etc.
3 minutes ago, maxjam said:And people voted for the Nazi Party, it didn't stop them being authoritarian ?
They didn't actually. They were a minority party that seized further power through taking advantage of existing emergency powers. Their worst actions were not directly supported by people either, while the whole point is that our approach is vastly popular, so much so that a government against the strategy has been forced into it after they messed up trying to go the UK way.
3 minutes ago, maxjam said:Not everyone in Australia is happy with the restrictions;
There are always nutters in every country. The lockdown protests are broadly unpopular in Australia.
3 minutes ago, maxjam said:* Fortunately the very fair and resonable Australia Govt haven't drafted in the military to police the streets, used drones to watch people from the skies, redrafted public health orders to 'work for the police rather than the public' and introduced a series of fines to keep you in your place.
*see previous tweets posted on pages 193/194.
People are broadly in favour of fines etc, as most hate that selfish actions of a few can ruin it for everyone.
-
4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:
How have you concluded this out of interest?
Covid zero requires minimal restrictions most of the time. For example, I've been in lockdown for 10 days in the last year. The economy didn't need to stop, and consumer confidence is high overall. You don't have to worry about catching Covid when going out if it's not there in the first place.
-
1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:
So based on the UK now reaching this figure there should never need to be any lockdowns ever again?
The UK is at around 60% fully vaccinated right now.
Also, the point is that at 80%+, we can control outbreaks without the need for lockdowns. That starts from the assumption that current outbreaks are under control at that point. The UK isn't in such a position.
53 minutes ago, maxjam said:Sounds like a never-ending authoritarian nightmare to me
And I have to keep asking, if you are going for 0 covid deaths, why allow hundreds of flu deaths?
It's not about zero deaths necessarily, it's about cases creating more cases. When you allow some, you get more, so the Covid zero approach protects lives and livelihoods at the same time.
Authoritarian implies that it's something that the government is driving, in any case, when this move towards Covid zero policies in Australia was driven by what the electorates wanted. WA's government is hugely popular, and won 53/59 seats earlier this year in their election, 59.9% of the popular vote, and 69.7% on two party preferred.
-
4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:
And what is the magic 'enough people' number?
80%+ fully vaccinated is seen as the figure that will allow us to move away from lockdowns. The reason for this is that at that point, the effective R number can be kept below 1 without such harsh restrictions. The only issue is that the modelling underpinning that required us to keep the Covid zero approach until then, but NSW has messed that up. Going to be an interesting few months, though things are virtually where I am.
-
2 hours ago, maxjam said:
I'm just having a bit of fun with our Antipedean members.
I think it depends greatily upon which state you live in as to how impacted you have been - some places have had 100+ day lockdowns.
There is not question that their respective deaths tolls are far better than ours but at what cost? Australia will tip into recession after 30 years of growth and as lockdown burnout increases the Authorities introduce ever more draconian rulings...
The issue around NSW has been that they didn't follow the health advice to lockdown at first, and this was cheered on as a great win by the Murdoch press. They tried to go the UK route of track and trace, and exactly as predicted by everyone else in the country, it went pear shaped rapidly. They, until today, still hadn't lockdown the state, instead going by regions, and they still haven't locked down to the extent that other states did.
Ultimately though, Australia's economy has, overall, performed drastically better with this strategy than most others have. The issue now is that NSW mismanaged themselves into this mess trying to play politics with a virus, again underlining why just letting it burn just doesn't work.
If we had a competent PM, this could all of been avoided of course, with some kind of national strategy, rather than just leaving it to states individually. That said, given Morrison's mistakes, it's probably been best that he's been asleep at the wheel in that regard.
In the last year, I've been in lockdown for 10 days, and nobody in my state has died, let alone anyone I care about. Nobody I know has lost their job, and our economy as a whole has grown beyond the pre-Covid baseline. I'd say our strategy has worked pretty well.
-
Get in!
We've really come to life with Sibley on, and Stretton has looked dangerous leading up to that strike.
-
6 minutes ago, maxjam said:
Although from one of the articles I linked it appears that the vaccinated might spread the delta variant at a similar rate to the unvaccinated;
'This cites research, which is unpublished, pointing out that people who are fully vaccinated might spread the Delta variant at a rate similar to their unvaccinated counterparts.'
As I said, we need to wait and review the data once it becomes available. What is 'similar'? 80% as transmissible? 90%? Its got to be far higher than 50% imho otherwise 'similar' would be the wrong word. And if it is 80% or 90% as transmissible in the vaccinated, whilst technically it might 'reduce transmission overall' it won't be reducing it enough to make much of a difference.
What you seem to keep missing is that the suggestion here is that it's people who have actually caught Covid-19, not just people in general. The disease cannot be spread by people who have not caught it, and the vaccines do prevent people from catching it.
Given we already know that the research is about viral loads, they're using the same kind of techniques as PCR tests use, which means that it cannot be referring to people who do not have detectable infections, as these people by definition do not have viral loads that are detectable, let alone as large as unvaccinated people.
So the key point there is that regardless of what this would end up showing, if it actually turns out to be the case, it doesn't change that vaccination does indeed greatly reduce transmission.
6 minutes ago, maxjam said:You see this is where is gets pedantic. I might not have posted a direct CDC link or article, instead I provided a link that when clicked on provide a thread of information - that included the CDC and various US media outlets and relevant tweets.
That isn't being pedantic, it's kind of the whole point. Your were trying to imply that CDC content was being downplayed, but you weren't actually posting CDC content.
6 minutes ago, maxjam said:What gives twitter the right to fact check the CDC? Then ban/suspend people for retweeting that information? Will they now be reinstated? We're only just finding out that the virus more than likely leaked from the Wuhan Lab, previously you faced the wrath of social media if you suggested it. People have been warned/suspended for mentioning Ivermectin - which is now under going a study in the UK. If you can't question it, its not science, it propaganda.
Twitter is a private business, they can censor whatever they want, it's kind of the deal with private platforms. In many ways, they're actually legally mandated to by many governments because of the way that laws around what does and does not constitute publishing has changed in the last few years around the World.
They're basically wading through a storm of random claims from all sides, and they're trying to get on top of that. Legitimate stuff will occasionally be caught in that, but it doesn't mean that it's the intention of the action.
As to your specific examples, at this point, no, it is not 'more than likely' that it leaked from a Wuhan lab. It's an idea that is being investigated, but the prevailing hypothesis for it's origins remains that it is a zoonosis.
As to Ivermectin, the issue is around telling people that they should take the stuff, not just discussing whether there is merit in actually researching it. To my understanding, the paper that kicked off a lot of the controversy got pulled due to ethics issues, and there are more general doubts about the methodology, etc. It'll be interesting to see if other researchers can replicate the original claims.
-
26 minutes ago, maxjam said:
Then we need to wait for the new data to be released.
Or maybe we need to recognise that there's nothing in the post you've made that really challenges the current understanding of what the vaccine is doing, and it's more in the space of determining how infectious vaccinated cases are. Looking at that data when it's available will be interesting, but ultimately it doesn't change the main point, which is that vaccination will reduce transmission overall.
26 minutes ago, maxjam said:Not personally, I had to directly search for the CDC twitter link I posted. I only found out about it and the censorship surroundsing it from the following video;
What you posted wasn't a CDC link or article.
26 minutes ago, maxjam said:So a factchecked made a booboo? Oh no, shut everything down!
People make mistakes, it happens. Doesn't seem to be much sinister in the case they're discussing.
The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread
in The Jim Smith Room
Posted
Oh wow, my sides.