Jump to content

Coronavirus

1of4

By 1of4
in The Jim Smith Room

Recommended Posts

Angry Ram

Angry Ram

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Albert said:

As it turns out, it was just a monumental mistake from you making that claim. You quoted the number of swabs as the number of false positives. As noted, there was 10 false positives at a rate of less than 1 in 370. 

I think I said ‘I saw today’. Which I did. Don’t think I made much more of a comment. Back in your box.

 

28 minutes ago, Albert said:

Not an osteopath, thankfully. 

Didn’t think so.. I am seeing pipe and slippers and maybe some friends that try and avoid conversation.. Life’s too short.

 

waits for multi quote bore fest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

I think I said ‘I saw today’. Which I did. Don’t think I made much more of a comment. Back in your box.

My mistake, I mixed up you sourcing the post at 4 am with you originally seeing it at 4 am. 

Mate, the facts are right there, you posted them, are you seriously doubling down on this blunder of yours? There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but doubling down on it because you can't accept reality is baffling. 

3 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:


Didn’t think so.. I am seeing pipe and slippers and maybe some friends that try and avoid conversation.. Life’s too short.'

Why would I have a pipe and slippers in Australia? More like thongs and a Zooper Dooper. 

Also, why would anyone want to be involved in a pseudoscientific practice like osteopathy? 

3 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

waits for multi quote bore fest.

Ah yes, 'borefest'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Angry Ram

Angry Ram

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Albert said:

Mate, the facts are right there, you posted them, are you seriously doubling down on this blunder of yours? There's nothing wrong with making a mistake, but doubling down on it because you can't accept reality is baffling. 

Behave. I posted something I saw, people can make of it what they want. It’s been proved to be misleading, okay, no problem with that, have a play with yourself to your hearts content. 
I’ve pretty much stayed out of this thread as it is not my area of expertise or interest really. I have more important things to do than pore over stats that that can be twisted to suit. I will leave that mind numbing project to you. I’m a Brexit man but that’s banned on here. Shame I have some good stuff to share as well.
Go look in the mirror, puff your chest out, pat yourself on your back or whatever it is Aussies do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Behave. I posted something I saw, people can make of it what they want. It’s been proved to be misleading, okay, no problem with that, have a play with yourself to your hearts content. 
I’ve pretty much stayed out of this thread as it is not my area of expertise or interest really. I have more important things to do than pore over stats that that can be twisted to suit. I will leave that mind numbing project to you. I’m a Brexit man but that’s banned on here. Shame I have some good stuff to share as well.
Go look in the mirror, puff your chest out, pat yourself on your back or whatever it is Aussies do. 

You posted something in error. It simply wasn't true, and that appears to be because you misread it. It's also possible that someone else on one of these platforms allowing wild disinformation was the one to misread it. In either case, now would be an excellent time to show some class and admit your error. It's wasn't 'misleading' it was just an outright error. 

It's also funny that you claim that 'stats can be twisted to suit', but there really is only one thing they've shown this entire time. The only time they aren't is when there is this straight up disinformation style post, like yours before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norman

Norman

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Behave. I posted something I saw, people can make of it what they want. It’s been proved to be misleading, okay, no problem with that, have a play with yourself to your hearts content. 
I’ve pretty much stayed out of this thread as it is not my area of expertise or interest really. I have more important things to do than pore over stats that that can be twisted to suit. I will leave that mind numbing project to you. I’m a Brexit man but that’s banned on here. Shame I have some good stuff to share as well.
Go look in the mirror, puff your chest out, pat yourself on your back or whatever it is Aussies do. 

Do you know who you're talking to? You're talking to someone who has made one error in several hundred pages. (lol). 

You're just some bloke who has made a 'monumental' error on a football forum, on a thread contributed to regularly by about 8 posters. Probably 7 now you've been put off posting. 

I have some questions that are unanswered, though. 

Do we know how long this vaccine works for? 6 months? 12 months? 

Can we top the doses up every 6 months or 12 months? 

70 percent herd immunity would look a long way off if this is the case. How many doses would we need a year just to vaccinate old people? Do we have the ability to purchase that amount and extra for the rest of the population?

Maybe this poo will go on for ages yet. Depressing if that's the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B4ev6is

B4ev6is

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 1of4 said:

Those school kids that doesn't like football, maybe a few passes to a cinema, to be used over the five day Christmas period. 

Nice reward for them, while keeping them off the streets. Also gives the cinemas a bit of a boost financially

They get national film day but cinema are shut at the moment mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Well Ive worked out why @Albert is lurking on our forums...  He's after some of our vaccine!

Whilst @Angry Ram may have mistakenly took a misleading false positive tweet as fact, at least those didn't return false positives for HIV ?

 

Yeah, they've suspended the order of those for the time being. The issue is that they're using a protein that is present in HIV, which tend triggers false positives. It's not risk to people, but an annoying side effect of such a vaccine, and doing so at nation wide levels could cause issues for detecting HIV, even if only short term.

Edit: Should probably add that this is just one of the potential vaccines that the Australian government had a contract for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Norman said:

Do you know who you're talking to? You're talking to someone who has made one error in several hundred pages. (lol). 

You're just some bloke who has made a 'monumental' error on a football forum, on a thread contributed to regularly by about 8 posters. Probably 7 now you've been put off posting. 

You're confusing errors which have been spotted with total errors. If you feel I've made errors, but not admitted to them, I'm curious to see where. 

52 minutes ago, Norman said:

I have some questions that are unanswered, though. 

Do we know how long this vaccine works for? 6 months? 12 months? 

Can we top the doses up every 6 months or 12 months? 

70 percent herd immunity would look a long way off if this is the case. How many doses would we need a year just to vaccinate old people? Do we have the ability to purchase that amount and extra for the rest of the population?

Maybe this poo will go on for ages yet. Depressing if that's the case. 

The answer is that we just don't know yet. It should be long term enough that an organised vaccination program should be able to eliminate the virus though. 

As to dosing, everyone will need more than one of the current candidates, one month apart if I recall right. This means that the UK will need around 130+ million doses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert

Albert

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

The candidate was terminated. That seems a bit harsh.

Given the need for a vaccine soon, not years from now, it's understandable. The candidate worked well by all accounts, but ultimately even if harmless, forcing a drastic change to HIV testing to facilitate it's use when there are other candidates, which have been secured by the Australian government as well, it doesn't make sense to press on. Disappointing, but understandable. 

Goes to show how cautious we're being here in Australia though. The talk is that the other vaccines may be approved by March. The strong position Australia are in in terms of control of the virus has helped in that department though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rynny

rynny

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Albert said:

Given the need for a vaccine soon, not years from now, it's understandable. The candidate worked well by all accounts, but ultimately even if harmless, forcing a drastic change to HIV testing to facilitate it's use when there are other candidates, which have been secured by the Australian government as well, it doesn't make sense to press on. Disappointing, but understandable. 

Goes to show how cautious we're being here in Australia though. The talk is that the other vaccines may be approved by March. The strong position Australia are in in terms of control of the virus has helped in that department though. 

200.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...