What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Seasons 2020 - 22 COVID-19 discussion thread

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
61,254
What does this actually mean? That they have suppressed our immune system with their shot so you will need to keep taking their vaccine forever to stay healthy or that their vaccine barely lasts 6 months before you will need booster shots for the rest of your life?

 
Messages
235
What does this actually mean? That they have suppressed our immune system with their shot so you will need to keep taking their vaccine forever to stay healthy or that their vaccine barely lasts 6 months before you will need booster shots for the rest of your life?

I'm not sure, but last time I checked the tetanus shot needed to be re-administered every 10 years, and non-one seems to have much of a problem about that vaccine not lasting forever...
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
72,491

Nicely written.
So they say 70 to 100 studies have been done.
They "examined about 30" ... you examined them - so is it 30 or some other number, why "about"? you'd kinda know if you did some legit investigation with the intent of an outcome right?
They found "a bare minimum of 5" they think suck .... well again, how many is it? You should know right? Cos you did this in depth investigation right? is it 5 or more than 5? Why not just state a number and name them?
Then they only reference 3 as examples of dodgy stuff.
Two of them are already retracted ... (and not considered by the meta analyses that have been done - but they fail to mention that).
Then they just cast a broad, well the rest are potentially shit too, net over it all just to make everything look shit. But hang on, you said you actually "examined about 30" - so did you examine 30 or not? If you did you would have found em shit if they are all likely shit, right? Cos you do thorough work right?
Then they finally question the entire medical review process .... so how we we trust anything at all ever then? People have tried to pick issues with the vax trials too but similarly, no f**ks given to answer their issues .... don't get me wrong, I've seen plenty of people pointing out how flawed it all is - all I'm saying is maybe they need to do their forensics alot more, yet they have only picked this one for some reason.

hmmmmmm - nicely written ???? 🤔

I might also add that they are not the people with the right letters next to their names that this thread has ever accepted as people qualified to make such judgements on anything covidy - you know the virologists and epidemiologists and such ..... not my judgement, I think its possible for people to apply themselves to other fields and I realise these people are just looking at data, so I'm not personally saying they cant pass judgement - but thats been the gist of attacking plenty of other people throughout this thread.
 

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
41,656
I've been double dosed for 10 days now and reaching a powerfull immunity against the virus. My body seems normal. I have the same strength as I always have had. My erection is powerful and none of my joints ache.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
61,254
So they say 70 to 100 studies have been done.
They "examined about 30" ... you examined them - so is it 30 or some other number, why "about"? you'd kinda know if you did some legit investigation with the intent of an outcome right?
They found "a bare minimum of 5" they think suck .... well again, how many is it? You should know right? Cos you did this in depth investigation right? is it 5 or more than 5? Why not just state a number and name them?
Then they only reference 3 as examples of dodgy stuff.
Two of them are already retracted ... (and not considered by the meta analyses that have been done - but they fail to mention that).
Then they just cast a broad, well the rest are potentially shit too, net over it all just to make everything look shit. But hang on, you said you actually "examined about 30" - so did you examine 30 or not? If you did you would have found em shit if they are all likely shit, right? Cos you do thorough work right?
Then they finally question the entire medical review process .... so how we we trust anything at all ever then? People have tried to pick issues with the vax trials too but similarly, no f**ks given to answer their issues .... don't get me wrong, I've seen plenty of people pointing out how flawed it all is - all I'm saying is maybe they need to do their forensics alot more, yet they have only picked this one for some reason.

hmmmmmm - nicely written ???? 🤔

I might also add that they are not the people with the right letters next to their names that this thread has ever accepted as people qualified to make such judgements on anything covidy - you know the virologists and epidemiologists and such ..... not my judgement, I think its possible for people to apply themselves to other fields and I realise these people are just looking at data, so I'm not personally saying they cant pass judgement - but thats been the gist of attacking plenty of other people throughout this thread.

The guy is literally a metascientist. You’ve missed the whole point of the article. He does not purport to be a virologist or epidemiologist. His expertise is not the subject matter, but the methodology of scientific analysis.

Metascience is defined as the “inquiry into the methodology and philosophical implications of scientific investigation,” and is referred to as the scientific study of science itself.
 

eels_fan

First Grade
Messages
5,045
I'm not sure, but last time I checked the tetanus shot needed to be re-administered every 10 years, and non-one seems to have much of a problem about that vaccine not lasting forever...
A top up every decade (and only if you need it through some sort of accident/injury - you don’t just get a tetanus shot just because your 10 years is up) is very different to having to get a booster potentially twice a year, maybe more because well who knows? They were saying on radio this morning that if you’ve had Pfizer you should have an AZ booster, and vice versa so you’ve got the protection of both types. That to me screams “we don’t have a good handle on this situation and we’re making it up as we go”. And that’s fine - who expects you to have perfect vax within 12-18 months of a disease/virus becoming prevalent around the world? I certainly don’t. They also said in a year or so they may have a better vaccine that handled delta and other variants better and won’t require boosters. So again, imo, that is saying “well this is the best we’ve got for now, so take it”.


that’s why I am not vaxxed, but it’s also why in a year, or two, or three, or whenever, when we have an effective and tested vax that they know what future dosing etc will be required, I’ll feel more confident in making the decision to get jabbed (and likely will).

if they tomorrow said they had got a breakthrough on a jab that stopped you getting cancer, but it might be 3 years before it’s thoroughly tested and they know all the possible outcomes/risks/effectiveness/dosage, but if you want you’re welcome to take this beta version that’s pretty good at doing what the proper one will later but yeah, you may still get cancer but it won’t be as bad, would you take it? Or would you consider your risk based on your age, contributing factors, and whether waiting for the “better” solution in a couple of years would be more favourable for you?
 

Gary Gutful

Immortal
Messages
43,252
I've been double dosed for 10 days now and reaching a powerfull immunity against the virus. My body seems normal. I have the same strength as I always have had. My erection is powerful and none of my joints ache.
How powerful?

You should do a power rankings thread.
 

Gary Gutful

Immortal
Messages
43,252
A top up every decade (and only if you need it through some sort of accident/injury - you don’t just get a tetanus shot just because your 10 years is up) is very different to having to get a booster potentially twice a year, maybe more because well who knows? They were saying on radio this morning that if you’ve had Pfizer you should have an AZ booster, and vice versa so you’ve got the protection of both types. That to me screams “we don’t have a good handle on this situation and we’re making it up as we go”. And that’s fine - who expects you to have perfect vax within 12-18 months of a disease/virus becoming prevalent around the world? I certainly don’t. They also said in a year or so they may have a better vaccine that handled delta and other variants better and won’t require boosters. So again, imo, that is saying “well this is the best we’ve got for now, so take it”.


that’s why I am not vaxxed, but it’s also why in a year, or two, or three, or whenever, when we have an effective and tested vax that they know what future dosing etc will be required, I’ll feel more confident in making the decision to get jabbed (and likely will).

if they tomorrow said they had got a breakthrough on a jab that stopped you getting cancer, but it might be 3 years before it’s thoroughly tested and they know all the possible outcomes/risks/effectiveness/dosage, but if you want you’re welcome to take this beta version that’s pretty good at doing what the proper one will later but yeah, you may still get cancer but it won’t be as bad, would you take it? Or would you consider your risk based on your age, contributing factors, and whether waiting for the “better” solution in a couple of years would be more favourable for you?
When I decided to get vaccinated, I didn't just focus on myself. I considered what it would mean for others. I also factored in how it might contribute to our collective quality of life (i.e no more lockdowns, borders opening again etc).

In an ideal world, I would have preferred them to have 83 years worth of testing on 40,000 chimps, but its global pandemic FFS and unprecedented in our lifetime. I cut our leaders and medical experts some slack on that basis.

...and besides I already do several unhealthy things that are arguably more risky than an f**king COVID injection. I suspect the same is the case for many that are currently critical of it.
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
72,491
The guy is literally a metascientist. You’ve missed the whole point of the article. He does not purport to be a virologist or epidemiologist. His expertise is not the subject matter, but the methodology of scientific analysis.

Metascience is defined as the “inquiry into the methodology and philosophical implications of scientific investigation,” and is referred to as the scientific study of science itself.
no I didnt ... "I realise these people are just looking at data, so I'm not personally saying they cant pass judgement"
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
72,491
When I decided to get vaccinated, I didn't just focus on myself. I considered what it would mean for others. I also factored in how it might contribute to our collective quality of life (i.e no more lockdowns, borders opening again etc).

In an ideal world, I would have preferred them to have 83 years worth of testing on 40,000 chimps, but its global pandemic FFS and unprecedented in our lifetime. I cut our leaders and medical experts some slack on that basis.

...and besides I already do several unhealthy things that are arguably more risky than an f**king COVID injection. I suspect the same is the case for many that are currently critical of it.
being out of lockdown etc are decisions of government - not entirely health .... maybe its questionable policy as much as anything?

I'm kinda close to 2 situations just this past week that don't fit the narrative being applied that being vaccinated is protecting others ...

1) my work is in the middle of implementing a no unvaxed in the building policy - yet they announced a case detected last friday (they apparently test everyone who enters the building atm, but that will change); no one allowed in unvaxed, so obviously vaxed - there is almost no one there atm who doesn't need to be, so it just resulted in a "shut down of 2 floors, deep clean & warn everyone" - but lets say its in a few months time and they have lots of people at work again - did this person put everyone's health at risk? Thats the narrative right? ... my company's draft policy they sent to us all literally says they know vaxed still spread - infact the only people they explicitly say are being protected are the unvaxed with an exemption who will be allowed in who they will need to protect with on a case by case basis - huh? aren't they protected by keeping the dirty f**kers out of the building?

2) more scary situation - an inlaw aunty in melbourne - 86 yrs old in aged care is ill, flu like symptoms - has tested positive; she says lots of others in there have it also but I don't know if that is correct or just her saying that (she is of sound mind tho); she is double vaxed - no one is allowed in there not vaxed .... now she's still here to tell the story, so thats a very good sign - feel free to say the vax is doing its job - yay vaccines! - fingers crossed it pans out well, obviously everyone is pretty worried tho .... but someone vaxed has obviously taken it in there and its spreading amongst vaxed people which this is all about protecting .... so again, this is kinda against the narrative of being vaxed stopping cases spreading right? She is literally the people we are emant to be protecting .... at this stage it seems its a good argument for, being vaxed will help you - so cool, be vaxed for your own health if you think its necessary - but its not a good example of being vaxed will stop you giving it to others
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
61,254
no I didnt ... "I realise these people are just looking at data, so I'm not personally saying they cant pass judgement"
So what’s your beef ? The guy stayed in his lane. His job is not to critique the subject matter of clinic studies or the conclusion, but the long understood pathways that make a study valid.

Whilst others are reading the executive summary, he’s tracing the route of the maze and testing legitimacy of methodology.

1635191320170.jpeg
 

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
41,656
A top up every decade (and only if you need it through some sort of accident/injury - you don’t just get a tetanus shot just because your 10 years is up) is very different to having to get a booster potentially twice a year, maybe more because well who knows? They were saying on radio this morning that if you’ve had Pfizer you should have an AZ booster, and vice versa so you’ve got the protection of both types. That to me screams “we don’t have a good handle on this situation and we’re making it up as we go”. And that’s fine - who expects you to have perfect vax within 12-18 months of a disease/virus becoming prevalent around the world? I certainly don’t. They also said in a year or so they may have a better vaccine that handled delta and other variants better and won’t require boosters. So again, imo, that is saying “well this is the best we’ve got for now, so take it”.


that’s why I am not vaxxed, but it’s also why in a year, or two, or three, or whenever, when we have an effective and tested vax that they know what future dosing etc will be required, I’ll feel more confident in making the decision to get jabbed (and likely will).

if they tomorrow said they had got a breakthrough on a jab that stopped you getting cancer, but it might be 3 years before it’s thoroughly tested and they know all the possible outcomes/risks/effectiveness/dosage, but if you want you’re welcome to take this beta version that’s pretty good at doing what the proper one will later but yeah, you may still get cancer but it won’t be as bad, would you take it? Or would you consider your risk based on your age, contributing factors, and whether waiting for the “better” solution in a couple of years would be more favourable for you?

It's not that a lot had a choice. In my situation as a contractor who works at factories you have to be dosed with the magic medicine. So what is the choice? Get a new job that pays less then half and sell house. That is the reality if have a fair size mortgage and one income. It would mean moving home with parents and living back in the shed. Our freedoms where taken away and this was forced. Our media has to much say on the way the country is run and our politicians are as weak as piss. I blame them. It will also be interesting to see what happens once a class action starts. I don't see how you ban people working at Coles or construction sites etc. Inunderstand if worked at nursing homes or hospitals.
But in saying that I still do feel more comfortable having some protection. I am heaps relaxed now in public. Not worried if I did catch it tbh.
As far as risks go how many people go and get silicon slapped in their tits just to have more men find them more appealing? Use illegal drugs made in backyards. Smoke cigarettes, eat bad food. People constantly abuse their bodies even when they know what taking is bad.
 

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
41,656
When I decided to get vaccinated, I didn't just focus on myself. I considered what it would mean for others. I also factored in how it might contribute to our collective quality of life (i.e no more lockdowns, borders opening again etc).

In an ideal world, I would have preferred them to have 83 years worth of testing on 40,000 chimps, but its global pandemic FFS and unprecedented in our lifetime. I cut our leaders and medical experts some slack on that basis.

...and besides I already do several unhealthy things that are arguably more risky than an f**king COVID injection. I suspect the same is the case for many that are currently critical of it.

Please share these unhealthy activities.
 

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
41,656
being out of lockdown etc are decisions of government - not entirely health .... maybe its questionable policy as much as anything?

I'm kinda close to 2 situations just this past week that don't fit the narrative being applied that being vaccinated is protecting others ...

1) my work is in the middle of implementing a no unvaxed in the building policy - yet they announced a case detected last friday (they apparently test everyone who enters the building atm, but that will change); no one allowed in unvaxed, so obviously vaxed - there is almost no one there atm who doesn't need to be, so it just resulted in a "shut down of 2 floors, deep clean & warn everyone" - but lets say its in a few months time and they have lots of people at work again - did this person put everyone's health at risk? Thats the narrative right? ... my company's draft policy they sent to us all literally says they know vaxed still spread - infact the only people they explicitly say are being protected are the unvaxed with an exemption who will be allowed in who they will need to protect with on a case by case basis - huh? aren't they protected by keeping the dirty f**kers out of the building?

2) more scary situation - an inlaw aunty in melbourne - 86 yrs old in aged care is ill, flu like symptoms - has tested positive; she says lots of others in there have it also but I don't know if that is correct or just her saying that (she is of sound mind tho); she is double vaxed - no one is allowed in there not vaxed .... now she's still here to tell the story, so thats a very good sign - feel free to say the vax is doing its job - yay vaccines! - fingers crossed it pans out well, obviously everyone is pretty worried tho .... but someone vaxed has obviously taken it in there and its spreading amongst vaxed people which this is all about protecting .... so again, this is kinda against the narrative of being vaxed stopping cases spreading right? She is literally the people we are emant to be protecting .... at this stage it seems its a good argument for, being vaxed will help you - so cool, be vaxed for your own health if you think its necessary - but its not a good example of being vaxed will stop you giving it to others

I have a friend who is a big time lawyer. Im talking big time.Global. Anyhows He reckons companies can't force the vaccine unless there is some sort of legal precedent or legislation behind them. He expects places that do to face a large scale class action against them if they are not at tier 1 or tier 2 risk in their industry.
 

hindy111

Immortal
Messages
41,656
I have a friend in the medical field. Big time. Heaps of knowledge. Not these pissant doctor most of you plebs deal with.

As far as I understand when you are vaxxed your viral load will be less. The severity of the virus will depend on how big a load you cop. So if you're vaxxed yes you can spread it. But probably won't blast as big a load. Meaning the other person won't cop as big a spray and won't get as sick.

Regardless of any of this I feel like this. We can't stay looked up forever. There is an effective vaccine that will help you. But if your old and weak you still may die with or without the medicine. So get the medicine and give yourself best chance of survival cause most likely you will get it at some stage. That's how it is.
Vaxxed know they can get it and spread it.
 

strider

Post Whore
Messages
72,491
So what’s your beef ? The guy stayed in his lane. His job is not to critique the subject matter of clinic studies or the conclusion, but the long understood pathways that make a study valid.

Whilst others are reading the executive summary, he’s tracing the route of the maze and testing legitimacy of methodology.

View attachment 55411
my beef is that I think the article is wishy washy .... they are meant to be cutting through the guff to reveal the reality, yet they can't even be exact about what they are saying they found - if you found stuff you should know exactly what - not using word like "about", "likely", "bare minimum of" - if you are gonna base your legitimacy on being detailed and precise, then be precise ffs
 

Latest posts

Top