News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread III - L6ckdown

[Lomas]

Hope these teachers aren't making sneaky trips upto sydney and bringing back corvid with them.

Damn teachers, shakes fist.

 

[ferball]

This is the government that is 'leading' us through a global pandemic, through climate change impacts and its resulting disasters, through an escalation of tensions with our largest trading partner and global superpower/regional military might, and into what promises to be an era of significant societal change. And yesterday they chose to use the release of detailed modelling work around the spread and thus control mechanisms of this coronavirus to spin the messaging about how they are reacting to science and now on top of everything rather than focussing on the implications of the data. They failed to release this modelling information to the press before the press conference, then showed the press the data they referred to on small tv screens so that they couldn't see properly. Talk about controlling the message And that message is that Delta has changed everything apparently and that NSW is the first time we have seen that a lockdown is necessary. Spare me.

These useless, cowardly f***ers are a disgrace and should be utterly ashamed of themselves for playing politics throughout this pandemic, for risking lives and hiding behind bullshit so that they didn't have to make any decisions that would piss off their donors. Anyone who votes for these campaigners at the next election is complicit in this bullshit being permitted and propagated.

Is that the modelling the Docherty institute was sposed to do but wouldn't make public because of its "political sensitivity"?

 

[krakouers]

WA FIFO ‘probably positive’ while in the community

Premier Mark McGowan has revealed a WA FIFO worker is suspected of being COVID-positive while in the community, although he has held off plunging the State into another lockdown.

thewest.com.au

“Mark McGowan has revealed a FIFO worker has “probably or possibly” been COVID positive in the community in recent weeks.

However, the Premier did not announce that Perth would be plunged into its fourth lockdown of the year.

Mr McGowan said the FIFO worker, a maintenance contractor in his 30s from Fortescue’s Cloudbreak mine site, had returned a “very, very weak” positive test result.

“The suspicion is that he may well have been positive at some point in the community,” Mr McGowan said.
“We don’t know if he’s infectious because, to further complicated matters, this person had been COVID positive back in March and April of last year.””

 

[jatz14]

It’s the law after Stratton oakmont vs prodigy services..
read up about the case in 1995 and comeback with your stupid insults..

That law has nothing to do with it. That law allows social media companies to avoid strict liability for what users say on their platforms. Remove it, anyone can sue Twitter if they dont like what a twitter user says. Remove the law, Twitter rules become stricter, and more rigidly enforced. "Censorship" drastically increases.

What lets them restrict users is the First amendment. What limits their obligation to do so is Stratton v Prodigy.

You have it completely arse backwards.

 

[jatz14]

corporate governance well and truly determines whether the PUBLICLY LISTED COMPANY censors its users.

Jesus Christ.

No it doesn't. They are exercising editorial control over their own website, which corporate governance and the first amendment not only allows, but insists upon, which is why it hasn't been stopped.

 

[jatz14]

oh man if you're thinking the US constitution is what governs corporations i'm done here. you're out of you're depth and don't know what you're talking about.

Seriously, are you trying to be the stupidest person on the internet?

These are American companies.

American companies fall under the American constitution just like individuals do.
The American constitution sits above corporate law. So, it does not matter what corporate law says, if it is in violation of the constitution, its invalid.

Please note this, its important, and the key to your misunderstanding. Constitution, trumps corporate law totally, to the point that corporate law found to violate it is invalid, and will get struck down by the courts. So please, please, please, for the love of god, stop going on about corporate law, it doesn't matter at all. The government, if it tried to control what speech the companies do or do not allow, runs up against constitutional law. It can rewrite section 260, the corporate act, any ****ing law it likes, it doesn't matter in the slightest. YOU CANNOT OVERIDE THE CONSITUTION WITH CORPORATE LAW.

The American government can not tell social media companies what to allow, or disallow on their websites. Period.

They can ask. Which they have done. Please Mr media corporations, will you take down covid mis information, pretty please. Even that is sailing close to the wind in terms of what the constitution allows.

 

[jatz14]

WA FIFO ‘probably positive’ while in the community

Premier Mark McGowan has revealed a WA FIFO worker is suspected of being COVID-positive while in the community, although he has held off plunging the State into another lockdown.

thewest.com.au

“Mark McGowan has revealed a FIFO worker has “probably or possibly” been COVID positive in the community in recent weeks.

However, the Premier did not announce that Perth would be plunged into its fourth lockdown of the year.

Mr McGowan said the FIFO worker, a maintenance contractor in his 30s from Fortescue’s Cloudbreak mine site, had returned a “very, very weak” positive test result.

“The suspicion is that he may well have been positive at some point in the community,” Mr McGowan said.
“We don’t know if he’s infectious because, to further complicated matters, this person had been COVID positive back in March and April of last year.””

We have ramped up testing capacity in anticipation of a surge in FIFO covid testing tomorrow, as all the companies start to panic.

 

[jatz14]

Don't be naive, you do not do a study to prove or disprove, you do a study to evaluate, the results end up telling you if it works or it doesn't.



And how many of these "experts" conducted a study? Zero?



Yes, one study had to be withdrawn because it was faulty. There have been numerous others studies that have been fine. It is amusing that people fixate on the one that was withdrawn.

WHO Data Suggests Ivermectin Reduces COVID Mortality, But They Won’t Recommend It?

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, there is evidence to discuss a completely different approach to treating COVID-19, yet it’s being ignored. We would likely not need any potentially harmful lockdowns, expensive drugs or vaccines if we used these treatments – and this might be exactly...

www.collective-evolution.com

According to that article in April, there were 49 studies as of that date.



lol You are questioning the ethics of a professor who specialises in evaluating medicine we have and formulating an effective protocol for fighting ailments. Seriously? He contacted the Victorian premier when we had our long lockdown and recommended we use a protocol he tested for seriously ill patients, you think he would tell them to give a lethal dose to people? You are an idiot if you believe that.



I do not believe or not believe. There is just some interesting data being presented by people who have a lot of experience in medicine who have conducted tests and analysed meta data from other studies. If they say this drug could help fight covid then I think it was important for us to look seriously at it... because the virus has mutated so many times since the vaccine was developed and it would take years to vaccine the world, there is a strong possibility the virus is going to learn and figure out how to get around the vaccine before we vaccinate everyone. There is too much of it in the community and we have neglected to use tools that could have helped us keep it in check.

It isn't about believing or disbelieving, it is what does the data say and how accurate was the testing. The smaller the scale of testing, the more prone you are to anomalies impacting the findings. Even a test done as well as we could, might end up with irregularities due to the small sample size. It is why we needed much larger testing.

We have dragged our collective arses when it comes to Ivermectin. What we are doing now should have been done over a year ago, when we didn't even have a vaccine developed.

We should have had the data to say if this thing works or doesn't by July last year, why has this taken so long?

Lol. You think they just look at the drug? When the efficacy of a drug is tested, it is done on the basis of all the preliminary work that says it may be effective. That is the basis on which a study on actual people proceeds. You give it to people then check to see if the predicted benefits are there or not.

You do not, under any circumstances, just give it to people, to evaluate. Exceedingly unethical. If it is not given on the basis of a predicted benefit, then it isn't given. A cancer drug trial is done on the basis of a predicted benefit, and you assess that benefit against alternative treatments. That is the basis of the whole assessment in fact. Patients treated with standard drug A, of known benefit, are compared to people treated with experimental drug B, and the respective benefits compared.

As for the ethics of a professor specialising in evaluating medicine.

No, not questioning his ethics. Evidence based medicine was introduced when they realised how many of the widely accepted medical treatments used, did not work. Know why there was so many utterly ineffective treatments being taught to Drs in medical school? Because experts, of unquestioned ethical integrity said, I studied this in my practice, so do this, this works. So everybody said, he is an expert, lets do that, and teach all the new Drs to do it to, and 40 years later. oooops. Evidence based medicine is, 'Great, your a world famous expert, of unquestionable integrity, and you studied this disease, and recommend everyone does what you say. Now show us the evidence'.

Show us the evidence.

 

[Ligma]

You guys are still going

 

[B4Bear]

Seriously, are you trying to be the stupidest person on the internet?

These are American companies.

American companies fall under the American constitution just like individuals do.
The American constitution sits above corporate law. So, it does not matter what corporate law says, if it is in violation of the constitution, its invalid.

Please note this, its important, and the key to your misunderstanding. Constitution, trumps corporate law totally, to the point that corporate law found to violate it is invalid, and will get struck down by the courts. So please, please, please, for the love of god, stop going on about corporate law, it doesn't matter at all. The government, if it tried to control what speech the companies do or do not allow, runs up against constitutional law. It can rewrite section 260, the corporate act, any ******* law it likes, it doesn't matter in the slightest. YOU CANNOT OVERIDE THE CONSITUTION WITH CORPORATE LAW.

The American government can not tell social media companies what to allow, or disallow on their websites. Period.

They can ask. Which they have done. Please Mr media corporations, will you take down covid mis information, pretty please. Even that is sailing close to the wind in terms of what the constitution allows.

Yes.

There is zero value in arguing with this individual.

Nothing worse than an opinionated fool who refuses to concede when they are wrong.

One of the few block-worthy people on here.

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[DesertRoo]

That law has nothing to do with it. That law allows social media companies to avoid strict liability for what users say on their platforms. Remove it, anyone can sue Twitter if they dont like what a twitter user says. Remove the law, Twitter rules become stricter, and more rigidly enforced. "Censorship" drastically increases.

What lets them restrict users is the First amendment. What limits their obligation to do so is Stratton v Prodigy.

You have it completely arse backwards.

Read the judgement..
PRODIGY commenced operations in 1990. Plaintiffs base their claim that PRODIGY is a publisher in large measure on PRODIGY's stated policy, starting in 1990, that it was a family oriented computer network. In various national newspaper articles written by Geoffrey Moore, PRODIGY's Director of Market Programs and Communications, PRODIGY held itself out as an online service that exercised editorial control over the content of messages posted on its computer bulletin boards, thereby expressly differentiating itself from its competition and expressly likening itself to a newspaper. (see, Exhibits I and J to Plaintiffs' moving papers.) In one article PRODIGY stated:

and the subsequent law from the prima facie case.
(3)
The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

They can’t be a publisher and editor while silencing political debate and simultaneously claiming protections under the same law,
..
only a fascist would argue otherwise.

 

[Muscles Thommo]

Back into lockdown we go.... watch this spread like wildfire

 

[see see]

Came here looking for some insight into the latest cases but ended walking into a scrag fight between an MBA and an accountant. FMD.

 

[big_e]

Came here looking for some insight into the latest cases but ended walking into a scrag fight between an MBA and an accountant. FMD.

#notallaccountants

 

[Hojuman]

Think l posted a few days ago for teachers to be high on the list of those needing to be vaccinated after h.c. workers.
Mightta helped.

 

[giantroo]

Local football league rocked as player tests positive to COVID-19

A player from the Newport senior football team has tested positive to coronavirus. The Rumour File this morning heard a club had notified all its senior players that a member of the opposition team they played on Saturday had returned a positive COVID-19 result. The president of the Newport...

www.3aw.com.au

 

[The Warlord]

Given Gladys put her personal brand ahead of public health, COVID is now endemic on the eastern seaboard of Australia.

We'll be in and out of lockdowns of varying tightness until the end of the year.

 

[Swallow_Wood]

Given Gladys put her personal brand ahead of public health, COVID is now endemic on the eastern seaboard of Australia.

We'll be in and out of lockdowns of varying tightness until the end of the year.

So politics have ****ed us. ****ed the purchasing and rollout of vaccines, ****ed the management of quarantine, ****ed the control of outbreaks and even after almost 18 months of learning how to deal with this thing here in Victoria, they managed to be partisan about that and ****ed the rest of 2021 and into 2022.

Bravo NSW and the feds. Bravo.

 

[Harris 10]

Back into lockdown we go.... watch this spread like wildfire

petty much, we are screwed.

tipping restrictions, will be tightened by midnight.

 

[Tas]

Lol. You think they just look at the drug? When the efficacy of a drug is tested, it is done on the basis of all the preliminary work that says it may be effective. That is the basis on which a study on actual people proceeds. You give it to people then check to see if the predicted benefits are there or not.

My point is there isn't a study with the intent to prove or disprove something works, that creates bias. Studies just analyse drugs and they let the data dictate if something works or it doesn't work.

You do not, under any circumstances, just give it to people, to evaluate. Exceedingly unethical. If it is not given on the basis of a predicted benefit, then it isn't given. A cancer drug trial is done on the basis of a predicted benefit, and you assess that benefit against alternative treatments. That is the basis of the whole assessment in fact. Patients treated with standard drug A, of known benefit, are compared to people treated with experimental drug B, and the respective benefits compared.

wtf are you talking about?

As for the ethics of a professor specialising in evaluating medicine.

No, not questioning his ethics. Evidence based medicine was introduced when they realised how many of the widely accepted medical treatments used, did not work. Know why there was so many utterly ineffective treatments being taught to Drs in medical school? Because experts, of unquestioned ethical integrity said, I studied this in my practice, so do this, this works. So everybody said, he is an expert, lets do that, and teach all the new Drs to do it to, and 40 years later. oooops. Evidence based medicine is, 'Great, your a world famous expert, of unquestionable integrity, and you studied this disease, and recommend everyone does what you say. Now show us the evidence'.

Show us the evidence.

The professor who developed the protocol is an Australian professor who also developed protocols that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and saved billions of dollars worldwide. I think he is better at his job than a keyboard warrior on a football forum.

There is plenty of evidence and it has been the basis for numerous countries using the drug to help fight covid.

As an example... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ This is a meta analysis of 15 trials.

"This result was confirmed in a trial sequential analysis using the same DerSimonian–Laird method that underpinned the unadjusted analysis. This was also robust against a trial sequential analysis using the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method."

Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% (95% confidence interval 79%–91%).

Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for “need for mechanical ventilation,” whereas effect estimates for “improvement” and “deterioration” clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty.

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

The secondary outcomes refers to giving it to patients who are already ****ed up. As a prophylactic a number of studies have suggested it is as effective as vaccines whilst the drug has a long known history and is approved for human use unlike all of our vaccines, that only have emergency use. That meta study was published late June.

I am not sure if large, more sophisticated studies would produce similar results, I just find it odd that this wasn't pushed by Trump so the Orange-Man-Bad mob have no reason to have a rod up their arse about it. Given we have had no treatment for it and it's potential was raised before we had an outbreak of covid here, I just find it perplexing why the entire world and medical community wouldn't aggressively test it if it could have helped to prevent the loss of life.

It just seems bizarre to me. If this thing is a dud root, we should have had a mountain of global tests showing that after testing it thoroughly it didn't work. We had NO treatment or prophylactic for covid and the only thing that might have been useful to help save lives and nobody of any note has performed trials in two years? Yay or Nay, we should have had mountains of irrefutable evidence before June last year.

 

[giantroo]

The Elm Road Clinic in Altona North has closed today to undergo a deep clean after it’s believed a positive case visited the clinic. All appointments today have been cancelled @abcmelbourne #springst

 

[The Warlord]

So politics have f’ed us. f’ed the purchasing and rollout of vaccines, f’ed the management of quarantine, f’ed the control of outbreaks and even after almost 18 months of learning how to deal with this thing here in Victoria, they managed to be partisan about that and f’ed the rest of 2021 and into 2022.

Bravo NSW and the feds. Bravo.

I seem to recall long discussions on this board in the Before Time about politics v science.

I argued that politics trumps science because it directs what science can and can't do.

This would, shitfully, prove me right once and for all.

 

[Swallow_Wood]

I seem to recall long discussions on this board in the Before Time about politics v science.

I argued that politics trumps science because it directs what science can and can't do.

This would, shitfully, prove me right once and for all.

Unfortunately.

The one thing you can always count on is politicians being politicians. They simply cannot just get out of the way.