Victorian Covid Outbreak 2021

[I Rock]

No. Its because people dont read all the stuff before they jump in boots and all!
If you people actually read the whole news articles rather than just jumping to a conclusion from the headline, they would understand more
And, then if they followed the link to the actual TGA, they could understand even better!

Pardon?

 

[kingswood71]

Pardon?

Apologies....wasnt meant to say "you people" was meant to say "people"
I had written something else, then deleted but didnt see the "you" still there ha ha

 

[MisterMarcus]

Now there's a surprise!

I love how they all just parrot these attempted "gotchas" that turn out to never be actual gotchas at all.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Do you think many people not knowing the difference (not just on this but many of the parts in play at the moment) is a lack of general understanding or the way the information is being presented? Because if it's the latter then that is it's own problem.

With most anti-vaxxers, they're just spoon fed a bunch of 'questions' and disproven facts from various conspiracy type sites.

It explains why all their attempted gotchas have been laughable failures....they're not actually attempting to understand the information they've been given, they're just uncritically regurgitating bog-standard Antivax 101 talking points.

 

[I Rock]

Apologies....wasnt meant to say "you people" was meant to say "people"
I had written something else, then deleted but didnt see the "you" still there ha ha

All good - I was also only joking/playing. I forget to add the emoji's because of my disdain for them, but should given tone cannot be represented in text.

On the subject of learning from all angles. I saw this video the other night, it was a snippet so not 100% sure what the discussion panel event was, but was suggested to be a medical forum of such, but of educators, not people in the field of medicine and also it was from the USA (to give some clarification). However, Old Mate was discussing the need for open conversation and communication on all things Covid, be it virus, origin, vaccine and treatment.

I'm not sure if 100% true so happy to be pointed otherwise. However in this video it was mentioned/suggested in America there was an official change to the definition of vaccine so these new "vaccines" could be classed as vaccines and not drugs (I assume here we would say medicine). And would peoples perception be different if it they were told to go out and get a new "medicine" (that has been tested, however not through the standard duration etc) injected and subsequently as we learn more about it, potentially have to get it every 6 months. Would public perception change.

It also got me thinking, again just out of curiosity as I don't know enough in regards to the actual biology and science behind it. If as we know these vaccines are different/new, is the argument on all vaccines show there adverse effects within 4 weeks need a little * with the covid vaccines?

 

[faible]

Because the patent expired and literally any company can make it now for dirt cheap.

Produce something new that might only be replicated by pfizer, market share gets split between 2 companies at an inflated cost.

Simples.

This is a real furphy.

If anyone can make it dirt cheap, then one of those companies would have produced some evidence it worked, skipped having to develop something new, and pumped it out.

None have.

Instead Pfizer & Merck have spent enormous amounts of cash developing something that does work.

 

[Gruffles]

Do you think many people not knowing the difference (not just on this but many of the parts in play at the moment) is a lack of general understanding or the way the information is being presented? Because if it's the latter then that is it's own problem.

The information is being presented in the correct way for the people involved in the process, the same way it will have been presented for years on end. I think the problem is that there are a number of people currently diving very deep into areas that they haven't been trained in or involved with, so they are interpreting things incorrectly. This would be fine (and I'd absolutely encourage it) if during their process of diving in they approached it as "I think this means x, but I'll ask someone who would know for clarification" rather than "I think this means x, therefore it does". It is not up to the organisations to "dumb it down" for the general public.

There's this weird human trait that many possess that sees lack of knowledge, or being incorrect, as a weakness of sorts. Instead, we should be seeking knowledge and clarification to grow/shift our understanding. Doubling down on an incorrect understanding in the face of opposing facts because you don't want to be wrong (and generally doing this in an abusive way for some weird reason)... that's weakness in my eyes.

 

[kingswood71]

All good - I was also only joking/playing. I forget to add the emoji's because of my disdain for them, but should given tone cannot be represented in text.

On the subject of learning from all angles. I saw this video the other night, it was a snippet so not 100% sure what the discussion panel event was, but was suggested to be a medical forum of such, but of educators, not people in the field of medicine and also it was from the USA (to give some clarification). However, Old Mate was discussing the need for open conversation and communication on all things Covid, be it virus, origin, vaccine and treatment.

I'm not sure if 100% true so happy to be pointed otherwise. However in this video it was mentioned/suggested in America there was an official change to the definition of vaccine so these new "vaccines" could be classed as vaccines and not drugs (I assume here we would say medicine). And would peoples perception be different if it they were told to go out and get a new "medicine" (that has been tested, however not through the standard duration etc) injected and subsequently as we learn more about it, potentially have to get it every 6 months. Would public perception change.

It also got me thinking, again just out of curiosity as I don't know enough in regards to the actual biology and science behind it. If as we know these vaccines are different/new, is the argument on all vaccines show there adverse effects within 4 weeks need a little * with the covid vaccines?

I may not be understanding fully what you mean ...but i will try to answer...correct me if I am misinterpreting the Q.
All medicines in Australia are classed as poisons according to various acts that define what schedule they fall into.
I think the whole argument about "new" medicines is kinda misunderstood. People seem to believe that all new medicines that come to market have had many years of study behind them. This is usually not the case and approval is determined based on studies and presentation of those studies and evidence to the TGA. The TGA can then reject or approve or even ask the submitter to re-present again with modifications.
The process then just doesnt stop once a medicine is granted approval, the data collection continues indefinitely. I
This is why the TGA may change indications or add more precautions or warnings later as further evidence comes to light. I can say with 100% honest that I often get updates from the TGA advising that X drug has now been "linked" to something new and the TGA has advised prescribers to take caution.
We are lucky in Australia to have such a regulator.

 

[kingswood71]

There's this weird human trait that many possess that sees lack of knowledge, or being incorrect, as a weakness of sorts. Instead, we should be seeking knowledge and clarification to grow/shift our understanding. Doubling down on an incorrect understanding in the face of opposing facts because you don't want to be wrong (and generally doing this in an abusive way for some weird reason)... that's weakness in my eyes.

100%
I have been in my field for many years but I dont know everything either. If I cant find the answer or am unsure, I will email someone who is more knowledgable in the specific area for advice and I do that frequently. It is not a sign of weakness on my behalf to say to a patient "Actually i have no idea but i will find out for you"....

 

[I Rock]

I may not be understanding fully what you mean ...but i will try to answer...correct me if I am misinterpreting the Q.
All medicines in Australia are classed as poisons according to various acts that define what schedule they fall into.
I think the whole argument about "new" medicines kinda misunderstood. People seem to believe that all new medicines that come to market have had many years of study behind them. This is usually not the case and approval is determined based on studies and presentation of those studies and evidence to the TGA. The TGA can then reject or approve or even ask the submitter to re-present again with modifications.
The process then just doesnt stop once a medicine is granted approval, the data collection continues indefinitely. I
This is why the TGA may change indications or add more precautions or warnings later as further evidence comes to light. I can say with 100% honest that I often get updates from the TGA advising that X drug has now been "linked" to something new and the TGA has advised prescribers to take caution.
We are lucky in Australia to have such a regulator.

Part of what I was asking, but a great bit of information regardless. So thanks!

I suppose the question are (I don't expect you to know but if you do brilliant):

Was the definition of vaccine updated so these new "vaccines" could be classed as vaccines (here or abroad)?

In your opinion would public perception be different if all the media/marketing behind the jab promotion said go get your medicine, not got get vaxed?

Are these new vaccines different enough to traditional vaccines that the position of all vaccines show adverse effect within 4 weeks possible not apply here?

 

[Gruffles]

I'm not sure if 100% true so happy to be pointed otherwise. However in this video it was mentioned/suggested in America there was an official change to the definition of vaccine so these new "vaccines" could be classed as vaccines and not drugs (I assume here we would say medicine).

Just on this, saying the definition was changed so that covid vaccines could be included is a little ridiculous. The definition was changed so that it was more correct, in that the old definition meant that only a small number of treatments that we currently call vaccines were actually vaccines by definition.

The vaccination definition on the CDC site previously read: the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease
The new version has "immunity" changed to "protection" as the vast majority of vaccines do not provide 100% immunity so the definition is not more correct.

The vaccine definition previously read: a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease
It now reads: a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases

Once again, a necessary change to correctly represent that many vaccines (note: not just the covid vaccine) do not produce 100% immunity to the diseases you are being vaccinated for.

 

[Gruffles]

100%
I have been in my field for many years but I dont know everything either. If I cant find the answer or am unsure, I will email someone who is more knowledgable in the specific area for advice and I do that frequently. It is not a sign of weakness on my behalf to say to a patient "Actually i have no idea but i will find out for you"....

And that's the sign of a true professional.

Speaking from my own experience, I've observed 100s of teachers teaching a class where they are asked an amazing question from a student that it's clear the teacher doesn't know the answer to. The best teachers respond with "Great question! I'm not sure but I'll find out and let you know next lesson", The worst try and bluff their way through an answer because they feel like they need to always know more than everyone else in the room.

FYI - the first response not only builds a level of respect from the students (as they can always tell when you're talking out of your a**, but also makes the student feel pretty damn good.

 

[theyellowsash]

I'm not saying "horse dewormer" is a successful treatment, merely that if it did work and they could make something similar with a few added herbs and spices with a 700% mark up, patent it and have the media market it for you globally. The profit would be alot higher than something that any pharmaceutical company could make for 20 cents a tablet.

and the other companies who can make it for 20 cents a tablet are just going to sit by and let pfizer sell it for a 700% markup and not try to undercut them and sell huge quantities of a product they already make?

covid has been around for 2 years now and we've already developed vaccines. Dont you think that it if any existing drugs were effective at treating it, we'd have already heard of it by now and companies would be rushing to the door to become the first available treatment and cash in on the massive massive contracts theyd be winning?

i lvoe how people can on one hand say that the pharma companies rushed out untested vaccines so they could be the first on the market, but at the same time all politely wait for someone else to rebrand an existing drug that treats it and rake in the profits

 

[I Rock]

and the other companies who can make it for 20 cents a tablet are just going to sit by and let pfizer sell it for a 700% markup and not try to undercut them and sell huge quantities of a product they already make?

covid has been around for 2 years now and we've already developed vaccines. Dont you think that it if any existing drugs were effective at treating it, we'd have already heard of it by now and companies would be rushing to the door to become the first available treatment and cash in on the massive massive contracts theyd be winning?

i lvoe how people can on one hand say that the pharma companies rushed out untested vaccines so they could be the first on the market, but at the same time all politely wait for someone else to rebrand an existing drug that treats it and rake in the profits

That could/would depend (and I would assume more relevant to USA than here) on how much stock you put in Companies lobbying Political Parties and sponsorship of TV and Media outlets to promote ours and demonize theirs.

 

[I Rock]

Just on this, saying the definition was changed so that covid vaccines could be included is a little ridiculous. The definition was changed so that it was more correct, in that the old definition meant that only a small number of treatments that we currently call vaccines were actually vaccines by definition.

The vaccination definition on the CDC site previously read: the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease
The new version has "immunity" changed to "protection" as the vast majority of vaccines do not provide 100% immunity so the definition is not more correct.

The vaccine definition previously read: a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease
It now reads: a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases

Once again, a necessary change to correctly represent that many vaccines (note: not just the covid vaccine) do not produce 100% immunity to the diseases you are being vaccinated for.

As always happy to be corrected, but to clarify I am going off what was said in the video. Not what I (think) know.

 

[theyellowsash]

That could/would depend (and I would assume more relevant to USA than here) on how much stock you put in Companies lobbying Political Parties and sponsorship of TV and Media outlets to promote ours and demonize theirs.

none. because its not the media who decide what an effective treatment is. or else we'd all be drinking bleach and taking horse pills. And the doctors/hospitals dont care about the media either.

all that needs to happen is for a company to submit its data showing invermictin (or whatever drug) effectively treats covid to the TGA for approval, and if it's legit the TGA will approve it and bam, you're officially the provider of the treatment for covid. and then come the contracts from governments, hospitals etc, and no matter of blah blah from other companies will stop that. even AZ is still being used despite the boomers whinge/scare campaign, because the tga still says its safe and effective.

 

[kingswood71]

Part of what I was asking, but a great bit of information regardless. So thanks!

I suppose the question are (I don't expect you to know but if you do brilliant):

Was the definition of vaccine updated so these new "vaccines" could be classed as vaccines (here or abroad)?

In your opinion would public perception be different if all the media/marketing behind the jab promotion said go get your medicine, not got get vaxed?

Are these new vaccines different enough to traditional vaccines that the position of all vaccines show adverse effect within 4 weeks possible not apply here?

Are you specifically referring to the CDC changing "immunity" to "protection"?
if we were using "Immunity", as meaning 100%, then almost no vaccine would be called a vaccine....
The flu vaccine for example gives less immunity that the covid vaccines do.
Long term studies of all vaccines happens and continues to happen.

 

[Gruffles]

As always happy to be corrected, but to clarify I am going off what was said in the video. Not what I (think) know.

Sorry, I was referring to the person on the panel you watched being ridiculous, not you.

 

[kingswood71]

and the other companies who can make it for 20 cents a tablet are just going to sit by and let pfizer sell it for a 700% markup and not try to undercut them and sell huge quantities of a product they already make?

covid has been around for 2 years now and we've already developed vaccines. Dont you think that it if any existing drugs were effective at treating it, we'd have already heard of it by now and companies would be rushing to the door to become the first available treatment and cash in on the massive massive contracts theyd be winning?

i lvoe how people can on one hand say that the pharma companies rushed out untested vaccines so they could be the first on the market, but at the same time all politely wait for someone else to rebrand an existing drug that treats it and rake in the profits

Not to mention that applying for a patent with just a small formulation change could possibly infringe on the prior patent and they original patent owner may well dispute the new patent.
case in point would be omeprazole v esomeprazole.

 

[theyellowsash]

And that's the sign of a true professional.

Speaking from my own experience, I've observed 100s of teachers teaching a class where they are asked an amazing question from a student that it's clear the teacher doesn't know the answer to. The best teachers respond with "Great question! I'm not sure but I'll find out and let you know next lesson", The worst try and bluff their way through an answer because they feel like they need to always know more than everyone else in the room.

FYI - the first response not only builds a level of respect from the students (as they can always tell when you're talking out of your a**, but also makes the student feel pretty damn good.

one of the best classes i did was where the teacher had nfi either because he was parachuted into the role from another subject (yay underfunding of public education). but it was great because we were learning largely alongside him, but he was leading and directing it.

im sure some conservative types would complain, but we all actually did well above average in the state testing for that subject, so it worked.

 

[I Rock]

Sorry, I was referring to the person on the panel you watched being ridiculous, not you.

All good, TBH it was more to hopefully ward off the potential "misinformation" "anti-vax" etc replies from others.

 

[Gruffles]

one of the best classes i did was where the teacher had nfi either because he was parachuted into the role from another subject (yay underfunding of public education). but it was great because we were learning largely alongside him, but he was leading and directing it.

im sure some conservative types would complain, but we all actually did well above average in the state testing for that subject, so it worked.

Oh I've been there... Thrown into a subject that was not in my specialty area to cover a long service leave because the school I was at (a long time ago) didn't want to hire a replacement. It was a roller-coaster ride of learning for both myself and the students! We all passed the topic tests with flying colours.

 

[theyellowsash]

Do you think many people not knowing the difference (not just on this but many of the parts in play at the moment) is a lack of general understanding or the way the information is being presented? Because if it's the latter then that is it's own problem.

i think its largely a combination of media/advertising, and the self important and arrogance of people to think that they know better than the experts. People see some fringe theory or ad, take their own anecdotal, simplistic and localised experiences, and think they know better than people who have studied things for years, even decades.

take global warming for example. there are people who will literally say "its rained a lot this year in the city i live, global warming is clearly fake".

'organic' food is another one. they've got people generically believing that anything 'not naturally found in nature' is bad and anything found in natural dirt is safe. you know, like arsenic, mercury, cyanide, sulfuric acid, etc. this despite us already telling pregnant women not to eat salmon because it contains too much mercury. Its like these people dont realise asbestos is a naturally occurring substance.


my favourite one is dihydrogen-monoxide. theres been plenty of examples of people (even minor government members) campaigning for the removal of dihydrogen-monoxide from our drinking water. you know, cause it sounds scientific so it must be a terrible chemical.

or any homeopathic/traditional etc medicine. the same people who think some ancient onion juice recipe cures everything laugh at pete evans because he thinks we should eat a neanderthal diet.

basically, people think they're smart, but theyre in reality very stupid and talking about things they have nfi about. and this is both poorly and highly educated people.

 

[Gruffles]

my favourite one is dihydrogen-monoxide. theres been plenty of examples of people (even minor government members) campaigning for the removal of dihydrogen-monoxide from our drinking water. you know, cause it sounds scientific so it must be a terrible chemical.

C'mon Sash, I thought you were better than this. Dihydrogen monoxide is a toxic killer that must be banned. This website will keep you informed (I mean, it even has "truth" in it's URL!)... Don't believe the "fake news".

Dihydrogen Monoxide - The Truth

Dihydrogen Monoxide resources, information, research and more. Dihydrogen Monoxide is a dangerous chemical. Buy a Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide T-shirt.

www.dhmo.org

 

[My Tilly]

i think its largely a combination of media/advertising, and the self important and arrogance of people to think that they know better than the experts. People see some fringe theory or ad, take their own anecdotal, simplistic and localised experiences, and think they know better than people who have studied things for years, even decades.

Does make you wonder why most countries around the globe adopted very different approaches to this pandemic. I mean if they are that brilliant and have studied this stuff for decades, surely a one system policies would fit all but guess what, they have not.
Even countries who have some of the brightest minds in the world with A+ healthcare were ridiculed early on in the pandemic for their approach. Sweden was a focal point in particular as 'experts' warned they would reach 100,000 deaths this same time last year.
They now have 15,070 citizens who have passed away to this point in time.

Australia may have done very well when it comes to deaths but those figures are increasing exponentially. We do not have herd immunity like a lot of other countries. Meanwhile our suicide rates are rising and our children are facing psychological implications to which no 'expert' can justify. Many small businesses have closed down and you have a lot of bitter and angry people in the community. Vaccines are only a small part of solution but this narrative of blaming it all on the unvaccinated is a bizarre phenomenon.
I can just see it now, 6 months time, 90% double vaccination rate. All unvaxxed ostracized and living like hermits but ICU beds are full of breakthrough cases and deaths increasing . . . . everyone will still be blaming unvaccinated despite them not being part of society for months already.
Always someone else to blame if things don't pan out as these 'experts' predicted.