Select to expand quotesgo said..
Oops. I must confess I didn't watch more than a minute of that video. Just seeing that it was Alan Jones on Sky was enough for me.
So the point l was making was more about the messenger than the message. A view l still keep.
More importantly, should a surf sup have two or only one leash plug installed?
Probs 2
Select to expand quotelotofwind said..
So has Donald Trump and Brenton Tarrant ...........say no more.
So if Trump is a billionaire, then by your logic japie is too.
Herpa derp.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
What did he actually say? I thought there was something about sunlight as well.
Either way, he was treated with proper drugs, by his doctor.
What am I, google?
What's that got to do with misreporting and misrepresenting what he said?
Select to expand quoteeppo said..
So if you think for one second that what you read and hear is the truth, there is no capture, no agenda and the controlling powers have only our best interests at heart - I say it's time you put your lead between your legs and start sucking, because that's about as useful as you are ever gonna be.
You know the truth, because it's whatever the government, via the social media, is telling you.
Quick search, but I couldn't find this section of the Surgeon General's speech on any other platform. Start at 1:28 to avoid the waffle:
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%
Or ebola. Not upper respiratory infections?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%
Or ebola. Not upper respiratory infections?
Well, in the case of Ebola I think its because it also lives in other species where it doesn't kill them and then people get infected from those animals where it is much more aggressive in humans. It doesn't linger in the human population so cannot mutate and evolve into less deadly forms.
Did Smallpox kill people quickly or allow them to pass on the virus well before death? If so, this could explain why it could be passed on despite having such a high mortality rate. It does show symptoms obviously, so it can't just linger in the population and evolve into less virulent forms.
My understanding is that if you have a virus that exists in a population it will be mutating all the time. If one of those mutations results in a variant that spreads much more quickly it will end up being the dominant strain as people pass it along before showing signs of infection. If it were fatal immediately or showing obvious signs of infection then it can be identified and controlled more quickly.
A variant that kills the host immediately is doomed, yet a variant that presents very few symptoms can be passed quickly and without being identified. If it killed the host days later after infection then it is too late and that virus could be very effective at spreading and deadly at the same time, so you can have a virus that spreads quickly and is very deadly.
I think the control of SARS was effective because the symptoms were able to be identified pretty quickly compared to its level of contagiousness.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%
If part of the theory is that fatal strains kill off the host, so don't get to spread, then that probably holds true in sparse and remote villages, but I'm not sure the logic is so applicable in today's high density population. Suppose a highly deadly COVID strain appeared....there's no real reason for it to need to evolve into something less deadly straight away. It would need to kill an awful lot of people before the population density was reduced enough to prevent it's transmission.
Slightly different question.... I had my first jab 2 weeks ago with no noticeable side effects. Yet to see the impact of the second jab, but it made me wonder....is someone that has no side effects from the vaccine more likely to be a person that would be asymptomatic if they caught the disease?
I think the answer to my own question has come to me. It boils down to reproductive rates. If it only takes two children per woman to maintain population, then if you have three you can lose one to smallpox without it affecting the overall population level. And since women in underdeveloped countries and Europe a couple of centuries ago had as many children as they had sexual encounters, there were plenty of spare kids to go around to allow for the various causes of stock wastage.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..Mr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%
If part of the theory is that fatal strains kill off the host, so don't get to spread, then that probably holds true in sparse and remote villages, but I'm not sure the logic is so applicable in today's high density population. Suppose a highly deadly COVID strain appeared....there's no real reason for it to need to evolve in something less deadly straight away. It would need to kill an awful lot of people before the population density was reduced enough to prevent it's transmission.
Slightly different question.... I had my first jab 2 weeks ago with no noticeable side effects. Yet to see the impact of the second jab, but it made me wonder....is someone that has no side effects from the vaccine more likely to be a person that would be asymptomatic if they caught the disease?
You'd need to start by saying which jab you had. If you had the clot shot I've no idea. For the Pfizer it seems that not many are reacting to the polyethylene glycol (although some scientists have suggested a higher molecular weight would result in fewer reactions) or the lipids, so we can ask about the glycoprotein. Any old glycoprotein could be an allergen but does a person with a peanut allergy always have a shellfish allergy, no. I guess the answer is, I have no idea but let me know how you feel in three years.
Select to expand quoteNow this is interesting to me.
About the TTS death of a 43yo Tassie man.
A 1/50,000 chance, sure, I can accept that as pretty good science.
But the part where he says "this gentleman's age group". I'm from the same group, and I've been pushed emphatically from multiple sources to take any jab I can get as quick as I can get it, some might say with threats of discrimination for non participation.----
Tasmania's Director of Public Health Mark Veitch said the incidence of TTS after AstraZeneca was now estimated to be about 2 in 100,000.
"People in this gentleman's age group had been advised to weigh up the risks benefits [of the AstraZeneca vaccine] carefully for several months certainly before this vaccine was provided," he said
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
I don't know why my comments always post as quotes
are you hitting the reply or quote button?
If you are quoting someone else, you can edit out the surplus 'quote' entries in 'plain text mode'.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Well, in the case of Ebola I think its because it also lives in other species where it doesn't kill them and then people get infected from those animals where it is much more aggressive in humans. It doesn't linger in the human population so cannot mutate and evolve into less deadly forms.
Did Smallpox kill people quickly or allow them to pass on the virus well before death? If so, this could explain why it could be passed on despite having such a high mortality rate. It does show symptoms obviously, so it can't just linger in the population and evolve into less virulent forms.
My understanding is that if you have a virus that exists in a population it will be mutating all the time. If one of those mutations results in a variant that spreads much more quickly it will end up being the dominant strain as people pass it along before showing signs of infection. If it were fatal immediately or showing obvious signs of infection then it can be identified and controlled more quickly.
A variant that kills the host immediately is doomed, yet a variant that presents very few symptoms can be passed quickly and without being identified. If it killed the host days later after infection then it is too late and that virus could be very effective at spreading and deadly at the same time, so you can have a virus that spreads quickly and is very deadly.
I think the control of SARS was effective because the symptoms were able to be identified pretty quickly compared to its level of contagiousness.
Ebola has been detected in non-human animals but they're not considered natural hosts. It spreads by contact with bodily fluids and excretions, and in places where handling of dead bodies is tradition, it spreads rapidly. Doctors who study it -- for years -- use the right precautions and are perfectly fine.
I had to sign a form once saying that if I contracted Ebola and died then I accepted that my body wouldn't be repatriated to Australia for burial.
I figured by then I wouldn't care so I signed away.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
I had to sign a form once saying that if I contracted Ebola and died then I accepted that my body wouldn't be repatriated to Australia for burial.
I figured by then I wouldn't care so I signed away.
What happened?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
Well, in the case of Ebola I think its because it also lives in other species where it doesn't kill them and then people get infected from those animals where it is much more aggressive in humans. It doesn't linger in the human population so cannot mutate and evolve into less deadly forms.
Did Smallpox kill people quickly or allow them to pass on the virus well before death? If so, this could explain why it could be passed on despite having such a high mortality rate. It does show symptoms obviously, so it can't just linger in the population and evolve into less virulent forms.
My understanding is that if you have a virus that exists in a population it will be mutating all the time. If one of those mutations results in a variant that spreads much more quickly it will end up being the dominant strain as people pass it along before showing signs of infection. If it were fatal immediately or showing obvious signs of infection then it can be identified and controlled more quickly.
A variant that kills the host immediately is doomed, yet a variant that presents very few symptoms can be passed quickly and without being identified. If it killed the host days later after infection then it is too late and that virus could be very effective at spreading and deadly at the same time, so you can have a virus that spreads quickly and is very deadly.
I think the control of SARS was effective because the symptoms were able to be identified pretty quickly compared to its level of contagiousness.
Ebola has been detected in non-human animals but they're not considered natural hosts. It spreads by contact with bodily fluids and excretions, and in places where handling of dead bodies is tradition, it spreads rapidly. Doctors who study it -- for years -- use the right precautions and are perfectly fine.
I just Googled it, and it seems that it is expected that it has a natural reservoir host, its just that they don't know what it is. Apparently it dies off in apes and chimpanzees and other mammals, but they suspect fruit bats. Another article suggested that one outbreak was likely from a human host hosting the virus for 5 years or so, and then somehow spreading it.
From this, whichever way you want to see the source of the virus, its not 'floating around' the human population and mutating. Its either lying dormant in a human host, or existing in another species until it crosses over. Without that mutation amongst human hosts, its unlikely that it would mutate into a less aggressive virus.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
It must be exciting to see a conspiracy everywhere.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I just Googled it, and it seems that it is expected that it has a natural reservoir host, its just that they don't know what it is. Apparently it dies off in apes and chimpanzees and other mammals, but they suspect fruit bats. Another article suggested that one outbreak was likely from a human host hosting the virus for 5 years or so, and then somehow spreading it.
From this, whichever way you want to see the source of the virus, its not 'floating around' the human population and mutating. Its either lying dormant in a human host, or existing in another species until it crosses over. Without that mutation amongst human hosts, its unlikely that it would mutate into a less aggressive virus.
The problem is it kills us easily, we wouldn't be bothered so much with it otherwise 
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..
It must be exciting to see a conspiracy everywhere.
Yeah, except all the new lockdowns, laws and restrictions really dull the excitement.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
I just Googled it, and it seems that it is expected that it has a natural reservoir host, its just that they don't know what it is. Apparently it dies off in apes and chimpanzees and other mammals, but they suspect fruit bats. Another article suggested that one outbreak was likely from a human host hosting the virus for 5 years or so, and then somehow spreading it.
From this, whichever way you want to see the source of the virus, its not 'floating around' the human population and mutating. Its either lying dormant in a human host, or existing in another species until it crosses over. Without that mutation amongst human hosts, its unlikely that it would mutate into a less aggressive virus.
The problem is it kills us easily, we wouldn't be bothered so much with it otherwise
Yes, this was in answer to why Ebola has not evolved to be less deadly.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Yes, this was in answer to why Ebola has not evolved to be less deadly.
No, that wasn't an answer to that question
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
You know the truth, because it's whatever the government, via the social media, is telling you.
Quick search, but I couldn't find this section of the Surgeon General's speech on any other platform. Start at 1:28 to avoid the waffle:
"Health misinformation is false, inaccurate or misleading information about health according to the best evidence at the time. [..] misinformation takes away our freedom to make informed decisions about our health..."
He either said previously or goes on to say something about social media needs to be more aggressive and faster in deleting "misinformation".
In other words, for your own well-being, the US government needs to get around the First Amendment by subcontracting censorship out to the social media companies in order to control the flow of information they deem to be true and therefore how people think.
...where have we heard that before, Uncle Joe?
Next up -- getting your facts wrong in public is hate speech.
Oh dear oh dear, Biden needs to cancelled now, have his accounts shut down etc etc according to his own Surgeon General: edition.cnn.com/2021/07/22/politics/fact-check-biden-cnn-town-hall-july/
Just a gaff though right, CNN? Not actual misinformation...
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
Yes, this was in answer to why Ebola has not evolved to be less deadly.
No, that wasn't an answer to that question
Your smiley face does nothing to address your logic. Is it because you don't want to work out the answer or something else?
What was the bit that was hard to get? Ebola does not exist in humans without killing them quite fast (usually). Hence there is no opportunity for it to mutate in humans to become a variant that is less deadly.
You have already said that Ebola in other animals are not the normal hosts. It appears that scientists disagree with you and think that there is a natural host out there, even though they are unsure of what it is. If this were not true, where would Ebola come from if it kills the human hosts quickly?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Your smiley face does nothing to address your logic. Is it because you don't want to work out the answer or something else?
What was the bit that was hard to get? Ebola does not exist in humans without killing them quite fast (usually). Hence there is no opportunity for it to mutate in humans to become a variant that is less deadly.
You have already said that Ebola in other animals are not the normal hosts. It appears that scientists disagree with you and think that there is a natural host out there, even though they are unsure of what it is. If this were not true, where would Ebola come from if it kills the human hosts quickly?
The answer to what exactly? I responded to the point I chose to respond to, if you've got a specific question somewhere there, let us know.
Sure, that might be it.
Sure, it's possible I've misquoted what I searched to verify what I was going to post before I posted a comment. But that's not scientists disagreeing with me, it's me misquoting scientists
We were talking about "susceptibility" if I remember correctly...
www.oie.int/en/disease/ebola-virus-disease/
That's not the right question: the implication is the origin of a contagious disease determines the lethality. If bats *are* the natural hosts, they're also the hosts of such things as ... coronaviruses ... which are a lot less deadly.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
We were talking about "susceptibility" if I remember correctly...
www.oie.int/en/disease/ebola-virus-disease/
That's not the right question: the implication is the origin of a contagious disease determines the lethality. If bats *are* the natural hosts, they're also the hosts of such things as ... coronaviruses ... which are a lot less deadly.
I was talking about the ability for viruses to evolve to be less deadly to their host, which I had presumed you were replying to.
If you were talking about susceptibility, I missed it entirely.Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mr Milk said..
A few people on this thread have mentioned the idea that, over time, pathogens evolve to be less deadly to their host.
It makes sense in a way.
But how do you explain smallpox? It's been in humans since before recorded history, but until it got wiped out through vaccinations it had a fatality rate of 30%
Or ebola. Not upper respiratory infections?
Yep, I get AZ two days ago, and I am stil alive...
To be fair didn't sleep whole night, had terrible fever and headache...
but not I am fine nowdoc said that to clot may get me in few days or not at all, and there is none of the wind to enjoy
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Yep, I get AZ two days ago, and I am stil alive...
To be fair didn't sleep whole night, had terrible fever and headache...
but not I am fine nowdoc said that to clot may get me in few days or not at all, and there is none of the wind to enjoy
Hopefully you are all good now.
One of the sadder things is when you read stories about people that refused it and then ended up dying. There was a story from some GP in the USA that said that at the end dying patients ask to be given the vaccine, not understanding that its too late and that's not how vaccines work'. Pretty sad stuff if you are unfortunate enough to be affected.
As someone else here asked, I wonder if the reactions by some people are indicative of the way they would have reacted to Covid had they gotten it? Of course there is no way to know.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Macroscien said..
Yep, I get AZ two days ago, and I am stil alive...
To be fair didn't sleep whole night, had terrible fever and headache...
but not I am fine nowdoc said that to clot may get me in few days or not at all, and there is none of the wind to enjoy
Hopefully you are all good now.
One of the sadder things is when you read stories about people that refused it and then ended up dying. There was a story from some GP in the USA that said that at the end dying patients ask to be given the vaccine, not understanding that its too late and that's not how vaccines work'. Pretty sad stuff if you are unfortunate enough to be affected.
As someone else here asked, I wonder if the reactions by some people are indicative of the way they would have reacted to Covid had they gotten it? Of course there is no way to know.
Interesting. Was having a similar conversation the other day where we hypothesized if Covid-19 was more noticeable, say pussy welts, hair falling out or debilitating seizures for years prior to certain death. Imagine the different approach from the perfectly sculptured influencers...
