CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)
Discussion
NewBod said:
Nickgnome - where are you getting your figures from?Hello?
Edited by NewBod on Thursday 24th June 19:53
There is another, who, according to his profile was in the construction industry, but seemed to know an incredible amount about the lipid nanoparticles used in the mRNA vaccines that are possibly causing issues in womens overies. I emphasis possibly.
The house of cards is starting to fall, thank God.
CrutyRammers said:
And for such analysis to be useful, you need to state your assumptions clearly. Particularly if you're deliberately picking the worst case as opposed to the most likely one. Otherwise it can look like one is pushing an agenda.
I apologise if i assumed that readers here would understand like for like comparisons. I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Nickgnome said:
I apologise if i assumed that readers here would understand like for like comparisons.
I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Source please, one that isn't the household transmission analysis that I've already critiqued.I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
And your two statements about 50% don't add up, so your understanding of maths isn't as good as you think it is.
Edited by Twinfan on Thursday 24th June 22:00
Twinfan said:
Nickgnome said:
Please read my last sentence above, first. It is key.
Every situation will have a probability impact. If say two people share a bed and have intimate contact the rate will be different to 2 people in a room and different agin as they move around a house. But for each of these very particular situation the probability will be broadly similar i.e a constant for each situation. That does not impact the 20% or 50% and could be overlaid was a 3rd factor.
At some point variables have to be taken out to get a good like for like comparison. It's just data analysis. None of this impacts on the benefit of the infected person being vaccinated as an impact to the vaccinated but uninfected person.
I'm a data analyst by trade and that makes fEvery situation will have a probability impact. If say two people share a bed and have intimate contact the rate will be different to 2 people in a room and different agin as they move around a house. But for each of these very particular situation the probability will be broadly similar i.e a constant for each situation. That does not impact the 20% or 50% and could be overlaid was a 3rd factor.
At some point variables have to be taken out to get a good like for like comparison. It's just data analysis. None of this impacts on the benefit of the infected person being vaccinated as an impact to the vaccinated but uninfected person.
k all sense to me.Does anyone else understand what the chuff he's on about?
Perhaps explain how you would undertake a similar data analysis with the variables concerned? Maybe we could learn form your expertise.
I'm not anonymous so easily found, how about you do the same?
Alternatively come visit and you can sit with actual experts and report back to PH. What do you think?
Twinfan said:
Nickgnome said:
I apologise if i assumed that readers here would understand like for like comparisons.
I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Source please, one that isn't the household transmission analysis that I've already critiqued.I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Twinfan said:
Nickgnome said:
I apologise if i assumed that readers here would understand like for like comparisons.
I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Source please, one that isn't the household transmission analysis that I've already critiqued.I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
And your two statements about 50% don't add up, so your understanding of maths isn't as good as you think it is.
Edited by Twinfan on Thursday 24th June 22:00
Twinfan said:
Nickgnome said:
I'm sorry but you said nothing that any client of mine would have accepted.
So your basing your entire 50% reduction in transmission on one paper, solely focused on household transmission. Ta.See ya.
You really need to learn consistency to further your case.
I really enjoyed my expert witness stuff. I wonder why.
Nickgnome said:
Twinfan said:
Nickgnome said:
I apologise if i assumed that readers here would understand like for like comparisons.
I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Source please, one that isn't the household transmission analysis that I've already critiqued.I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
And your two statements about 50% don't add up, so your understanding of maths isn't as good as you think it is.
Edited by Twinfan on Thursday 24th June 22:00
Nickgnome said:
CrutyRammers said:
And for such analysis to be useful, you need to state your assumptions clearly. Particularly if you're deliberately picking the worst case as opposed to the most likely one. Otherwise it can look like one is pushing an agenda.
I apologise if i assumed that readers here would understand like for like comparisons. I'm not pushing any agenda however you wrap it up a vaccinated and infected person is 50% less likely to pass the virus on. It really is not a difficult concept to grasp.
If you are not vaccinated and become fully infectious you are 50% more likely to pass the virus on.
If you and your ilk chose not to understand, the likely consequences are inevitable. I'm not the one getting all stressed by the current situation.
Because you are either pushing an agenda, or, perhaps more likely, simply don't understand the figures you are quoting. 50% of 20% is a reasonable reduction and worth a certain amount of cost. 50% of 3% rather less so. 50% of a fraction of a percent, quite likely not . The argument is, and always has been, a cost-benefit analysis, as any risk reduction must be.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Elysium said:
Some people might think this is a bit of an 'extreme' post, but I want to get this off my chest.
The people who blithely tell us that they are entirely happy with lockdowns and that we should stop whinging and simply do as we are told seem to believe that they are on the moral high ground.
I think they have abandoned all morality.
I see lockdown as an act of aggression. A direct attack on the welfare of my family and the people I care about. It's proponents did not give a moments thought to the stupidity of lockdown, it's inherent unfairness or the damage and despair that it has caused. They care nothing for its long term impact or the many ways that it has changed our society for the worse.
Lockdown is the action of a totalitarian state. Neil Ferguson famously said that no one believed we would accept the sort of authoritarian control that China used to stamp down on COVID at the expense of its people. And we should not have accepted it.
I can forgive people who went along with it at first when we didn't know what we were dealing with. If it had been airborne ebola than perhaps our response might have made sense. But its not. It is a stty little virus that ruthlessly attacks the most vulnerable in society, whilst causing little real trouble to everyone else.
The people who continue to cheer on restrictions now that the vulnerable are vaccinated do not deserve any respect. They are selfish immoral cowards who have inverted everything that this country stood for. They have torched our democratic history and they threaten our childrens future.
I think that slowly, inexorably, the truth of this will begin to emerge. To the point that, eventually, everyone will claim to have opposed lockdown. Sadly this was not the case. Its proponents are guilty of an unimaginative, stupid, banal evil and I very much hope to see the worst offenders stand trial for what I believe is a crime against humanity.
I don't think these views are strange. I think it is strange that so many people do not share them. That their inner morality is a fleeting, mishapen thing that they are willing to twist and contort. So that they can convince themselves that just about anything is acceptable, provided that they perceive it to be in their own selfish interests.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but it is my deeply held belief. I will not easily forgive the states appalling intrusion in our private family lives over the last 16 months. Things have been taken from us that can never be replaced and I hope there will be a steep price to pay by those responsible.
I love youThe people who blithely tell us that they are entirely happy with lockdowns and that we should stop whinging and simply do as we are told seem to believe that they are on the moral high ground.
I think they have abandoned all morality.
I see lockdown as an act of aggression. A direct attack on the welfare of my family and the people I care about. It's proponents did not give a moments thought to the stupidity of lockdown, it's inherent unfairness or the damage and despair that it has caused. They care nothing for its long term impact or the many ways that it has changed our society for the worse.
Lockdown is the action of a totalitarian state. Neil Ferguson famously said that no one believed we would accept the sort of authoritarian control that China used to stamp down on COVID at the expense of its people. And we should not have accepted it.
I can forgive people who went along with it at first when we didn't know what we were dealing with. If it had been airborne ebola than perhaps our response might have made sense. But its not. It is a s
tty little virus that ruthlessly attacks the most vulnerable in society, whilst causing little real trouble to everyone else. The people who continue to cheer on restrictions now that the vulnerable are vaccinated do not deserve any respect. They are selfish immoral cowards who have inverted everything that this country stood for. They have torched our democratic history and they threaten our childrens future.
I think that slowly, inexorably, the truth of this will begin to emerge. To the point that, eventually, everyone will claim to have opposed lockdown. Sadly this was not the case. Its proponents are guilty of an unimaginative, stupid, banal evil and I very much hope to see the worst offenders stand trial for what I believe is a crime against humanity.
I don't think these views are strange. I think it is strange that so many people do not share them. That their inner morality is a fleeting, mishapen thing that they are willing to twist and contort. So that they can convince themselves that just about anything is acceptable, provided that they perceive it to be in their own selfish interests.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but it is my deeply held belief. I will not easily forgive the states appalling intrusion in our private family lives over the last 16 months. Things have been taken from us that can never be replaced and I hope there will be a steep price to pay by those responsible.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 24th June 21:01
CrutyRammers said:
So why not just say that then, instead of the 20% nonsense?
Because you are either pushing an agenda, or, perhaps more likely, simply don't understand the figures you are quoting. 50% of 20% is a reasonable reduction and worth a certain amount of cost. 50% of 3% rather less so. 50% of a fraction of a percent, quite likely not . The argument is, and always has been, a cost-benefit analysis, as any risk reduction must be.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Lets cut through this we may get to some accord. Because you are either pushing an agenda, or, perhaps more likely, simply don't understand the figures you are quoting. 50% of 20% is a reasonable reduction and worth a certain amount of cost. 50% of 3% rather less so. 50% of a fraction of a percent, quite likely not . The argument is, and always has been, a cost-benefit analysis, as any risk reduction must be.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Do you accept that IF transmitabily is 100% between 2 people ie they are in close bodily contact, saliva exchange etc that If one of the is vaccinated then the reduction of possible infection for a vaccinated person is 80%?
Elysium said:
Some people might think this is a bit of an 'extreme' post, but I want to get this off my chest.
The people who blithely tell us that they are entirely happy with lockdowns and that we should stop whinging and simply do as we are told seem to believe that they are on the moral high ground.
I think they have abandoned all morality.
I see lockdown as an act of aggression. A direct attack on the welfare of my family and the people I care about. It's proponents did not give a moments thought to the stupidity of lockdown, it's inherent unfairness or the damage and despair that it has caused. They care nothing for its long term impact or the many ways that it has changed our society for the worse.
Lockdown is the action of a totalitarian state. Neil Ferguson famously said that no one believed we would accept the sort of authoritarian control that China used to stamp down on COVID at the expense of its people. And we should not have accepted it.
I can forgive people who went along with it at first when we didn't know what we were dealing with. If it had been airborne ebola than perhaps our response might have made sense. But its not. It is a stty little virus that ruthlessly attacks the most vulnerable in society, whilst causing little real trouble to everyone else.
The people who continue to cheer on restrictions now that the vulnerable are vaccinated do not deserve any respect. They are selfish immoral cowards who have inverted everything that this country stood for. They have torched our democratic history and they threaten our childrens future.
I think that slowly, inexorably, the truth of this will begin to emerge. To the point that, eventually, everyone will claim to have opposed lockdown. Sadly this was not the case. Its proponents are guilty of an unimaginative, stupid, banal evil and I very much hope to see the worst offenders stand trial for what I believe is a crime against humanity.
I don't think these views are strange. I think it is strange that so many people do not share them. That their inner morality is a fleeting, mishapen thing that they are willing to twist and contort. So that they can convince themselves that just about anything is acceptable, provided that they perceive it to be in their own selfish interests.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but it is my deeply held belief. I will not easily forgive the states appalling intrusion in our private family lives over the last 16 months. Things have been taken from us that can never be replaced and I hope there will be a steep price to pay by those responsible.
Excellent....I'm really glad you wrote that....sums it up nicely for me.The people who blithely tell us that they are entirely happy with lockdowns and that we should stop whinging and simply do as we are told seem to believe that they are on the moral high ground.
I think they have abandoned all morality.
I see lockdown as an act of aggression. A direct attack on the welfare of my family and the people I care about. It's proponents did not give a moments thought to the stupidity of lockdown, it's inherent unfairness or the damage and despair that it has caused. They care nothing for its long term impact or the many ways that it has changed our society for the worse.
Lockdown is the action of a totalitarian state. Neil Ferguson famously said that no one believed we would accept the sort of authoritarian control that China used to stamp down on COVID at the expense of its people. And we should not have accepted it.
I can forgive people who went along with it at first when we didn't know what we were dealing with. If it had been airborne ebola than perhaps our response might have made sense. But its not. It is a s
tty little virus that ruthlessly attacks the most vulnerable in society, whilst causing little real trouble to everyone else. The people who continue to cheer on restrictions now that the vulnerable are vaccinated do not deserve any respect. They are selfish immoral cowards who have inverted everything that this country stood for. They have torched our democratic history and they threaten our childrens future.
I think that slowly, inexorably, the truth of this will begin to emerge. To the point that, eventually, everyone will claim to have opposed lockdown. Sadly this was not the case. Its proponents are guilty of an unimaginative, stupid, banal evil and I very much hope to see the worst offenders stand trial for what I believe is a crime against humanity.
I don't think these views are strange. I think it is strange that so many people do not share them. That their inner morality is a fleeting, mishapen thing that they are willing to twist and contort. So that they can convince themselves that just about anything is acceptable, provided that they perceive it to be in their own selfish interests.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but it is my deeply held belief. I will not easily forgive the states appalling intrusion in our private family lives over the last 16 months. Things have been taken from us that can never be replaced and I hope there will be a steep price to pay by those responsible.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 24th June 21:01
Nickgnome said:
So there is your flaw. Not Maths but basic data which you do not accept.
You really need to learn consistency to further your case.
I really enjoyed my expert witness stuff. I wonder why.
I accept the data in that report no problem.You really need to learn consistency to further your case.
I really enjoyed my expert witness stuff. I wonder why.
What I don't accept is you extrapolating it to a blanket 50% reduction full stop. Or where you're getting the 20% that you also quote from.
Edited by Twinfan on Thursday 24th June 22:30
Elysium said:
foreright said:
Hoink said:
Happy is a strange word to use when describing how you've felt through this.
What about the younger members of your family? Do you have children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, etc? Do you not feel for them?
Don’t feed the gnome…What about the younger members of your family? Do you have children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews, etc? Do you not feel for them?
The people who blithely tell us that they are entirely happy with lockdowns and that we should stop whinging and simply do as we are told seem to believe that they are on the moral high ground.
I think they have abandoned all morality.
I see lockdown as an act of aggression. A direct attack on the welfare of my family and the people I care about. It's proponents did not give a moments thought to the stupidity of lockdown, it's inherent unfairness or the damage and despair that it has caused. They care nothing for its long term impact or the many ways that it has changed our society for the worse.
Lockdown is the action of a totalitarian state. Neil Ferguson famously said that no one believed we would accept the sort of authoritarian control that China used to stamp down on COVID at the expense of its people. And we should not have accepted it.
I can forgive people who went along with it at first when we didn't know what we were dealing with. If it had been airborne ebola than perhaps our response might have made sense. But its not. It is a s
tty little virus that ruthlessly attacks the most vulnerable in society, whilst causing little real trouble to everyone else. The people who continue to cheer on restrictions now that the vulnerable are vaccinated do not deserve any respect. They are selfish immoral cowards who have inverted everything that this country stood for. They have torched our democratic history and they threaten our childrens future.
I think that slowly, inexorably, the truth of this will begin to emerge. To the point that, eventually, everyone will claim to have opposed lockdown. Sadly this was not the case. Its proponents are guilty of an unimaginative, stupid, banal evil and I very much hope to see the worst offenders stand trial for what I believe is a crime against humanity.
I don't think these views are strange. I think it is strange that so many people do not share them. That their inner morality is a fleeting, mishapen thing that they are willing to twist and contort. So that they can convince themselves that just about anything is acceptable, provided that they perceive it to be in their own selfish interests.
I am sorry if this offends anyone, but it is my deeply held belief. I will not easily forgive the states appalling intrusion in our private family lives over the last 16 months. Things have been taken from us that can never be replaced and I hope there will be a steep price to pay by those responsible.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 24th June 21:01
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff