Coronavirus

Oz FChat is based on BS.

 

Confirmed. NSW already has two cases of the new variant.

Sig www.pless.com.au/mechanics.htm

 

Say it isn't so !!!

So now I have to delete fchat as well as facebook ?

 

Link?

 

$1 says the new variant is more contagious and less virulent than delta.

 

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Sig www.pless.com.au/mechanics.htm

 

It's on Twitter, so you can safely disregard as antivaxxer propaganda. Right?

Seriously, though, think about it for a second. How many people traveled from SA to AUS in the last two weeks? Omicron is everywhere and COVID is endemic.

 

Here we go again!!
Always 2 weeks before school holidays.

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Nope, I don’t assume anything. Your assumption of me makes no sense

So a single (antivaxxer) source from Israel puts out a story on football players and you consider that data? Are you kidding?

 

Funny you can't even resist insulting the source in the very same post that you're denying that you insult sources. "Antivaxxer" has become the new "Trump". Bet you can't stop using that word for even a week.

Are you a critical thinker, or are you not?

It's data in the sense that I'm glad that people are looking for an independently defined universe with a clear baseline, and they're counting in a way that doesn't ascribe causality. "FIFA registered athletes" is a very clearly defined universe with a pretty long history and large sample size whose definition has nothing whatsoever to do with COVID, and "lost consciousness during an event" is a reasonably clear criteria for counting. If nothing else, it's a smart way to look at things and a good place to start. Tell us what's wrong with that approach? (I have a few ideas about what assumptions they have made but haven't articulated, but I'm curious to hear yours.)

You may live in a world where a sheepskin means more than the quality of someone's work. I've made my bones in a world where the only thing that matters is results, and you just never know who is going to come up with something world-beating. The quiet, awkward guy in the corner who nobody knows is the guy you really want to talk to often enough that it's worth wading through the sea of randoms and nutters, especially if you want to be early.

 

You can be very promiscuous in your research, but not in your trading.

- William Eckhardt

 

Really?

How about you show me where the FIFA stuff has been published elsewhere and the numbers validated, including cause of death. That’s what a critical thinker would do

 

"Published elsewhere" is quite literally the opposite of critical thought! It says you won't even consider an idea before the herd (or some authority figure) has pre-validated it for you. It's the lazy way to score points with the rest of the crowd against me, but my experience of you has been quite different and I don't think that represents who you are at all.

What do I think critical thinkers would do? Let's talk about what might be right and what might be wrong with what these people did (without talking about who they are or are not). I've already said that I think their overall approach is an interesting one and that they found an interesting universe.

However, how can we be sure that these people are counting the exact same way as FIFA has been counting for the last 20 years? It is possible (even probable, given the incentives) that FIFA has a very high bar for inclusion in these counts and prefers the counts to be as low as possible. I would bet the researchers had a lower bar than FIFA, but they only paid lip service to their criteria for inclusion so we can't know. The original article may say more, but I'm handicapped by my illiteracy in Hebrew so I've got to rely on what I can read in the interpretation.

Personally, I think they got lazy and instead of applying their methodology for counting back as far as they could, they relied on Wikipedia to give historical information so their baseline is ****ed, which ****s their conclusions. That's why you have to ignore the commentary/outcomes when you run across articles like this and focus on their approach.

The gem they uncovered here is the universe. 250,000 FIFA registered athletes, where FIFA tracks some sort of adverse incident according to some set of 20 year old rules. The hope is that FIFA will apply their historical methodology consistently for 2021 when they get around to it. Problem is, by releasing an article like this, you tip FIFA off that you're watching them and poison the well. It's bad research, but not because they are unknowns or bad people or idiots. They just jumped the gun and spoiled the possibility of an independent set of data that we might otherwise have had in March.

So, I'll go back to the beginning and re-ask my original open question, which is "what do you make of this?"

 

TLDR

Sig www.pless.com.au/mechanics.htm

 

Cool story, bro.

 

Ok, so you can’t confirm that the article is based on actual figures published by FIFA. That’s my point, how can I make anything out of figures that have a question mark over their validity? Pointless exercise. Sudden death in athletes is not a new thing. Anyway, FIFA has been shown time and time again that it is a corrupt organisation, so agree, will they tell the truth ?

Can you stop posting, I’m binge watching Ted Lasso and you’re interrupting

 

The figures might be questionable, but it's not a pointless exercise because the approach is interesting. FIFA is hardly an unimpeachable source for anything. We can certainly agree on that!

My beef is that there is no consistency so there can be no conclusions. The authors' approach was only applied to this year but not prior years, and FIFA's approach was only applied to prior years but not this year.

Enjoy the show! I'll be here to annoy you further when you're done.

You are a good man, and I don't think anyone would argue that point.

 

Yeah. What happened?

 

He ran out of Jhonny Blue

 

About 850 people have died with Covid-19 in the past seven days in the UK

She is young, ashen and fighting for her life, and all I can offer is morphine. Recent chemotherapy has sent her blood count crashing. The drugs that could cure her breast cancer are so toxic to her body that even an innocuous infection could be fatal. As she flinches from the pain of taking a breath, I know that her raw, inflamed lung is scraping against the wall of her chest, making each gasp an ordeal.

I also know that somewhere at home, two little girls and their distraught father sit and wait in a house that rattles and gapes with the absence of their mummy.

“I need to be with them,” she rasps. “How soon?”

Dr Rachel Clarke: “I can well understand the anger some clinicians feel towards the unvaccinated. But I do not share it”

Although Ellen, as I’ll call her, gulps oxygen from the pipe on the wall, her pneumonia prevents her from talking in full sentences. I focus on getting her pain relief right, vital for enabling proper deep breathing, which allows me to suppress my private howl of disbelief.

Ellen, in her mid-thirties and with everything to live for, trusts her doctors to administer an antibiotic so potent that it is nicknamed Domestos; painkillers ten times more potent than opium; and chemotherapy literally designed to kill living human cells, a cytotoxic poison. Yet she will not, under any circumstances, countenance having a Covid vaccine. Her refusal makes me want to weep. The only thing worse than a young person’s death is one which easily could have been avoided. Thankfully, on this occasion Ellen’s chest infection is not Covid. But what about the next, and the one after that?


Does she not know how many unvaccinated young men and women with intact immune systems are suffocating to death in the intensive care unit one floor above her? How dumbfounded they were to discover that they were, after all, vulnerable to Covid? How they beg, sometimes, breaking all our hearts, to be vaccinated? How they plead for the protection they hope a jab might bring — when it is far too late for that now and all we can offer is a ventilator?

Ellen, I want to plead, how can you not choose life? For your children, for yourself, please be jabbed. You are so vulnerable I can hardly bear it. I say nothing, of course. Now is not the time. But I wonder for the thousandth time how we have arrived here, in this madness: a place where intelligent men and women would rather catch a deadly infectious disease than accept a vaccine with exceptional, and demonstrable, safety and effectiveness.

Now, in my NHS trust, we once again have entire wards devoted to treating Covid patients, in addition to those on mechanical ventilation in ICU. We are giving our all to care for our share of the 8,000 patients in UK hospitals with Covid. Out of sight, out of mind, these patients quietly continue to die at a rate of about 1,000 a week. The public can almost pretend they are not there. But we can’t.

Colleagues have seen children orphaned when first an unvaccinated mother and then an unvaccinated father succumb to Covid in swift succession. Pregnant, intubated women have died in intensive care shortly after their babies were delivered by emergency caesarean section.

Of the Covid patients treated in intensive care in recent months, the majority — nearly 75 per cent according to the latest data — have chosen not to be vaccinated. As Professor Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, put it this week: “This ongoing horror, which is taking place across ICUs in Britain, is now largely restricted to unvaccinated people.”

Individual decisions to forgo vaccination are having inevitable consequences for everyone else. In my NHS trust, we are on permanent black alert. We have already converted every conceivable spare space — discharge lounges, offices, oversized broom cupboards — into extra wards for patients. There is no spare capacity whatsoever.

The maths is brutal. One in, one out. Unless this patient leaves, that one cannot enter. The ambulance queue snakes around A&E, with paramedics sometimes spending an entire 12-hour shift stuck on the hospital forecourt, unable to drop off their patient. Trapped people are dying of heart attacks and strokes in the back of stationary ambulances, to the horror of all involved in trying to care for them.

In this desperate context, as patients suffer across the NHS, I can well understand the anger some clinicians feel towards the unvaccinated. I do not share it, however. The bedrock of good medicine is treating your patient simply as a human being in need. The moment you start making value judgments about what has brought them into hospital — smoking, paragliding, breaking the speed limit or riding a horse — you are not behaving as a doctor.

With our unvaccinated Covid patients, I feel more than anything desolate, heartbroken. I simply hate seeing them die. And I know they are here, in part, because a torrent of disinformation, spewed out on social media, has made them too scared to have the vaccine.

My rage is reserved for the charlatans who use their platforms to sow mistruths at such terrible cost. For the clever commentators who have latched on to the antivaxer movement to score political points by whipping up an ideological reaction to what they dub “vaccine dictatorship”.

These people are liars and cynics with blood on their hands.

Rachel Clarke is an NHS palliative care doctor

 

That text is doubled for some reason Peter, so it doesn't read as long as it looks. Such a sad tale.

 

Finger trouble.

 

TLDR, but just get a ****ing vaccination everyone!!


Silly signature here to annoy KIAI