Select to expand quoteIanR said..Kamikuza said..
That was one study. The next one I skimmed the "results" section of (also double-blind) stated no statistical significance in results. I'll wait for the meta analysis.
Have you read the response to the study you posted
Real does highlight the flaws in the study.
Like how small the group was (69)
ect.
No, haven't read it cos that wasn't the reason I dug it up :D
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I am not complaining about your links at all. I am complaining that a link by itself means nothing, at least for the purpose of discussion. I have no problem if you say 'Covid is caused by eating barnacles and washing daily in engine oil' and posting a link to show this. If you just post the link only I wouldn't be sure if you believed it or were making fun of it.
Maybe a meme. Have you thought about just posting stuff in memes? Its even easier as you can just post other people's stuff and no one can argue against it because you have said nothing, just posted a meme. Oh sorry... wrong forum user 
Yeah you are 
someone has said X, so I posted links that showed "X was true (or not) with context" and so I don't need to burble on about them. You really are cruel, insisting I do even more typing on that annoying phone keyboard and fighting with autocorrect...
If I said "COVID is caused by eating barnacles" then you can be sure that I'd have proof to back it up, because someone like IanR would call bull**** on me, and rightly so. So why post a link in that case? Although technically that would fall under my "extraordinary claims" criteria.
Can't be bothered too much with memes. That would require have a collection of them and that is even more pointless than train spotting.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Unless you provide a link to every web page on the entire internet, you have filtered.
The specific link providing specific information is itself unfiltered by my waffle.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Oh, you want a link?
No, I want a signed paperback copy. With a receipt.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
Oh, you want a link?
No, I want a signed paperback copy. With a receipt.
Don't tempt him, he's easily able to waffle out a book or two in between the bowls of ****e he regularly eats.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
No, it's not.
Wasn't it here someone posted the criticism of Biden's policy of incomplete vaccination in the middle of a pandemic...? This was never going to be eradicated, blaming the unvaccinated is a **** move for failure of policies that tried to eradicate it.
No, it's not.
They're touted as being HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at preventing severe illness and death, not preventing all transmission -- the CDC acknowledges this.
Full vaccination in California is 53% (#21), Florida is 49% (#27); there are almost half as many states less vaccinated than Florida. Vermont has the highest number of vaccinated people, but leads the 14-day number of hospitalized, and is fourth for new cases.
As Florida has almost double the population of over 60s than California, and we know this disease is much worse the older you get, it would be surprising if hospitalizations weren't high.
...play with the State Trends: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
In favor of... what?
If you're talking about potential benefit vs risk of adverse reaction, then you need to understand that people have different risk adversity profiles that influences their decisions. It seems that a lot of the "very pro-vaccine whatever the costs" people have a strange calculus that boils the options down to a binary of "get infected with, or without, being vaccinated", like 90% of the population haven't managed to avoid it altogether.
Assessing the odds: we just had IFR on the previous pages -- 1 in 2000 chance of death to COVID for me, versus 1 in 520 death by vaccine (0.0005% vs 0.0019% according to CDC/VAERS). www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You can see how people might struggle with the numbers.
Yes, that's what the media is saying but look at recent trends in the interactive map: it's all over the place. I'm remaining agnostic on that too.
Is it? To me it doesn't seem as simple as the media is making it out to be. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..evlPanda said..
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
No, it's not.
Wasn't it here someone posted the criticism of Biden's policy of incomplete vaccination in the middle of a pandemic...? This was never going to be eradicated, blaming the unvaccinated is a **** move for failure of policies that tried to eradicate it.
No, it's not.
They're touted as being HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at preventing severe illness and death, not preventing all transmission -- the CDC acknowledges this.
Full vaccination in California is 53% (#21), Florida is 49% (#27); there are almost half as many states less vaccinated than Florida. Vermont has the highest number of vaccinated people, but leads the 14-day number of hospitalized, and is fourth for new cases.
As Florida has almost double the population of over 60s than California, and we know this disease is much worse the older you get, it would be surprising if hospitalizations weren't high.
...play with the State Trends: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
In favor of... what?
If you're talking about potential benefit vs risk of adverse reaction, then you need to understand that people have different risk adversity profiles that influences their decisions. It seems that a lot of the "very pro-vaccine whatever the costs" people have a strange calculus that boils the options down to a binary of "get infected with, or without, being vaccinated", like 90% of the population haven't managed to avoid it altogether.
Assessing the odds: we just had IFR on the previous pages -- 1 in 2000 chance of death to COVID for me, versus 1 in 520 death by vaccine (0.0005% vs 0.0019% according to CDC/VAERS). www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You can see how people might struggle with the numbers.
Yes, that's what the media is saying but look at recent trends in the interactive map: it's all over the place. I'm remaining agnostic on that too.
Is it? To me it doesn't seem as simple as the media is making it out to be. Perhaps I'm missing something.
You should check your maths there.
A 0.0019% rate equates to approx 1:52631.
Also in australia with total cases of around 36630 there have been 940 deaths, or about 1:39 (about 2.5%)
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
I am not complaining about your links at all. I am complaining that a link by itself means nothing, at least for the purpose of discussion. I have no problem if you say 'Covid is caused by eating barnacles and washing daily in engine oil' and posting a link to show this. If you just post the link only I wouldn't be sure if you believed it or were making fun of it.
Maybe a meme. Have you thought about just posting stuff in memes? Its even easier as you can just post other people's stuff and no one can argue against it because you have said nothing, just posted a meme. Oh sorry... wrong forum user
Yeah you are someone has said X, so I posted links that showed "X was true (or not) with context" and so I don't need to burble on about them. You really are cruel, insisting I do even more typing on that annoying phone keyboard and fighting with autocorrect...
If I said "COVID is caused by eating barnacles" then you can be sure that I'd have proof to back it up, because someone like IanR would call bull**** on me, and rightly so. So why post a link in that case? Although technically that would fall under my "extraordinary claims" criteria.
Can't be bothered too much with memes. That would require have a collection of them and that is even more pointless than train spotting.
You forgot about the 'washing in engine oil' bit.
This is a forum and its good to hear other opinions, even if I disagree with them, or hate the person with a passion, or even agree with them, its good to see the logic behind it.
I must admit I do cringe when I meet people that tell me something 'just because it is'. I like to understand the reasoning, even if I don't agree with it. Wouldn't you find it personally boring if people just posted links and had no personal input?
You are typing all this on a phone keyboard? There's the first problem.
Good to hear you are not onboard with memes. You are now higher in my esteem, which I am sure disappoints you.
(Hey if you are Japan, can you send me a LWB Delica?)
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
Oh, you want a link?
No, I want a signed paperback copy. With a receipt.
I would have to authenticate the paperback first. Too much red tape. I will just post the link instead.
rumble.com/embed/viaa4w/?pub=4
Why would facebook and youtube remove this when posted?
It seems to me, given that vaccinated people can still be infected and can still transmit covid - but the symptoms / issues are reduced on a vaccinated person if they get it ... the vaccine is really turning into a treatment of sorts. And it seems a reasonably good one.
But as a means of eradicating it - surely this is not the solution we were hoping for. Get a shot for polio - you aint getting polio.
given that, why on earth would there be moves to make it mandatory to partake in normal daily activities such as in New York with the vaccine passports.
Well It does if you believe in elite political
power / control grabs but id rather not subscribe to that.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..
It seems to me, given that vaccinated people can still be infected and can still transmit covid - but the symptoms / issues are reduced on a vaccinated person if they get it ...
Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that proves that or is that just what the vaccine producers claim.
Select to expand quote
Because it runs counter to the narrative and we cannot have that can we!
From today's AFR
Can an employee refuse to work with unvaccinated colleagues?Under section 84 of the Work Health and Safety Act, a worker "may cease, or refuse to carry out, work if the worker has a reasonable concern that to carry out the work would expose the worker to a serious risk to the worker's health or safety, emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard".
The company can decide how it treats the unvaxed.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
From today's AFR
Can an employee refuse to work with unvaccinated colleagues?Under section 84 of the Work Health and Safety Act, a worker "may cease, or refuse to carry out, work if the worker has a reasonable concern that to carry out the work would expose the worker to a serious risk to the worker's health or safety, emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard".
The company can decide how it treats the unvaxed.
That's just stupid. Common sense has been ignored.
Getting jabbed will not and can not stop infection with Covid or spreading of Covid
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9868573/Fully-vaccinated-people-catch-Covid-really-JUST-infectious-unjabbed.html?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au
Select to expand quoteAnise said..eppo said..
It seems to me, given that vaccinated people can still be infected and can still transmit covid - but the symptoms / issues are reduced on a vaccinated person if they get it ...
Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that proves that or is that just what the vaccine producers claim.
Peer reviewed? Wrong forum, mostly beer reviewed here
Select to expand quotepsychomub said..airsail said..
From today's AFR
Can an employee refuse to work with unvaccinated colleagues?Under section 84 of the Work Health and Safety Act, a worker "may cease, or refuse to carry out, work if the worker has a reasonable concern that to carry out the work would expose the worker to a serious risk to the worker's health or safety, emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard".
The company can decide how it treats the unvaxed.
That's just stupid. Common sense has been ignored.
Getting jabbed will not and can not stop infection with Covid or spreading of Covid
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9868573/Fully-vaccinated-people-catch-Covid-really-JUST-infectious-unjabbed.html?utm_source=seabreeze.com.au
You will have to try and change the vaxed minds, and I guess that will be harder than getting a unvaxed to have the jab. The unvaxed will be in the minority and have little leverage. No matter how many links are posted to stories regarding vaccination, good or bad, time marches on and the world has chosen vaccination for the future.
Working from home may be the only option for the unvaxed, or retirement.
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
The unvaxed will be in the minority...
Only until the long term vaccination experimental therapy issues that will cause mass drop offs happens.
Select to expand quoteAnise said..eppo said..
It seems to me, given that vaccinated people can still be infected and can still transmit covid - but the symptoms / issues are reduced on a vaccinated person if they get it ...
Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that proves that or is that just what the vaccine producers claim.
Well a fair question. Just heard it through a conversation Joe Rogan was having in a recent podcast. He was pulling up papers and research done sent to him by medical professionals who are too scared to release them as their livelihoods would be on the line. So not a definitive source but does present a most probable problem with information control to suite a certain narrative
He also been sent some research that lays out the potentiality of more virulent strains being produced if the vaccine does not actually work as a traditional vaccine as we know it because of the above.
its called nuance conversation, something that social media bite size communication cannot provide.
surely though there is enough information even through the lowest common denominator mainstream media that shows this vaccine is not the one stop solution. Vaccinated people are still getting and transmitting it. So they are not "vaccinated", per say.
They are even saying you may need 6 monthly booster jabs. Again . treatment, not cure. by the way im okay with that but im not okay with mandated edicts by centralised government on an experimental drug. Whats next? What other liberties will be taken in the name of keeping you "safe"??
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..airsail said..
The unvaxed will be in the minority...
Only until the long term vaccination experimental therapy issues that will cause mass drop offs happens.
But what if that doesn't happen kiterboy? With the rate of vaccination take up it is looking more and more unlikely.
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Select to expand quoteairsail said..kiterboy said..airsail said..
The unvaxed will be in the minority...
Only until the long term vaccination experimental therapy issues that will cause mass drop offs happens.
But what if that doesn't happen kiterboy? With the rate of vaccination take up it is looking more and more unlikely.
Why does the rate of vaccination short term take up mean anything in regards to long term adverse effects looking more and more unlikely?
Long term is more than 3-6 months.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Nice false equivalence there.
So you're saying that a treatment, based previously individual tailored therapies, that was rushed out as an emergency release as a one size fits all, with no long-term studies for efficacy or possible negative effects, is not experimental?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Well, there's only 118 elements on the periodic table and a person who understands all of them can reliably predict a nuclear outcome.
There's billions of people and even identical twins are unique so the science becomes a little more hit and miss. When our Understanding of protein transcription factors is so developed that we're able to turn off ASD, then yeah, that's about the point where I'll say we're a bit beyond hit and miss.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..Mr Milk said..
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Well, there's only 118 elements on the periodic table and a person who understands all of them can reliably predict a nuclear outcome.
There's billions of people and even identical twins are unique so the science becomes a little more hit and miss. When our Understanding of protein transcription factors is so developed that we're able to turn off ASD, then yeah, that's about the point where I'll say we're a bit beyond hit and miss.
What is it you do for a job? You seem to bring up terms that few would know.
I figure you are either trying to impress us with your knowledge or not quite clever enough to dumb them down for the rest of us (except at least Kiterboy who is a know-it-all and loves to 'fix' things for me). I can't work out which. I have no idea what a protein transcription factor is or ASD. 
Aren't identical male twins not unique?
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..Mr Milk said..
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Well, there's only 118 elements on the periodic table and a person who understands all of them can reliably predict a nuclear outcome.
But can you reliably predict the integrity of a waste storage vessel? A problem that gets caused by a dose of vaccine will be pretty reliably limited to the person who gets it.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..airsail said..kiterboy said..airsail said..
The unvaxed will be in the minority...
Only until the long term vaccination experimental therapy issues that will cause mass drop offs happens.
But what if that doesn't happen kiterboy? With the rate of vaccination take up it is looking more and more unlikely.
Why does the rate of vaccination short term take up mean anything in regards to long term adverse effects looking more and more unlikely?
Long term is more than 3-6 months.
Pfizer was approved in Oz on the 25 Jan 2021, it has been approved for much longer overseas. So just taking Oz for instance, that's almost 7 months ago. You might want to edit your post as we are now past your long term.
Even I had my first AZ 4 months ago so I guess I'm part of the experiment too, oh, and no side effects at all long term.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..psychojoe said..Mr Milk said..
I'm a bit puzzled by the people in here who bang on about the "experimental" vaccine and potential side effects in the future. By and large, they're the same people who were pro nuclear power in HW. Why are they suddenly so scared of risks?
Well, there's only 118 elements on the periodic table and a person who understands all of them can reliably predict a nuclear outcome.
There's billions of people and even identical twins are unique so the science becomes a little more hit and miss. When our Understanding of protein transcription factors is so developed that we're able to turn off ASD, then yeah, that's about the point where I'll say we're a bit beyond hit and miss.
What is it you do for a job? You seem to bring up terms that few would know.
Speak for yourself.
I know it's a hard task for you since you can't help but speak for everyone.
Select to expand quoteeppo said..Anise said..eppo said..
It seems to me, given that vaccinated people can still be infected and can still transmit covid - but the symptoms / issues are reduced on a vaccinated person if they get it ...
Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that proves that or is that just what the vaccine producers claim.
Well a fair question. Just heard it through a conversation Joe Rogan was having in a recent podcast. He was pulling up papers and research done sent to him by medical professionals who are too scared to release them as their livelihoods would be on the line. So not a definitive source but does present a most probable problem with information control to suite a certain narrative
He also been sent some research that lays out the potentiality of more virulent strains being produced if the vaccine does not actually work as a traditional vaccine as we know it because of the above.
its called nuance conversation, something that social media bite size communication cannot provide.
surely though there is enough information even through the lowest common denominator mainstream media that shows this vaccine is not the one stop solution. Vaccinated people are still getting and transmitting it. So they are not "vaccinated", per say.
They are even saying you may need 6 monthly booster jabs. Again . treatment, not cure. by the way im okay with that but im not okay with mandated edicts by centralised government on an experimental drug. Whats next? What other liberties will be taken in the name of keeping you "safe"??
Iceland is being a good example of a high percentage of vaccinated population and a sharp increase in delta cases.
Some vaccinated people still catching it and some still getting very ill but on the whole most people getting mild symptoms.
There were even ant-vaxxers in the 50's This what they were saying about the polio vaccine...
Objections from one even prompted the famed newscaster Walter Winchell to warn his radio audience not to take the vaccine, because "it may be a killer."
