COVID-19 Health System Overload Forecaster

tylerdurden wrote:

I’ll post the question back at you Stok but in reverse: at what death rate would you say vaccine mandates are unnecessary?
1 in 1000, 1 in 2000, 1 in 10000?

I think you mean at what point would vaccine mandates become a public health risk - i.e. the risk of vaccinating outweighs the risk of letting it run.

Firstly, and thankfully, the numerous phases of clinical trials pretty quickly close out this question before a vaccine becomes available for public use.

But personally, say with covid as it stands, and assume that the government advice was 'we know the vaccine is risky, but it's there if you want it' I'd be pretty worried with anything like 1 death in 10,000 or less.

Of course, there's no way a vaccine would be rolled out with anything close to that, so it's purely hypothetical. however, there's no saying that the next variant, or next pandemic we have is the widow maker, killing 25%+ of infected.

tylerdurden wrote:

I’ll post the question back at you Stok but in reverse: at what death rate would you say vaccine mandates are unnecessary?
1 in 1000, 1 in 2000, 1 in 10000?

why not answer the question first, then ask back at you.

Answering a question with a question is just avoiding answering.

You’re getting there Stok.
It’s way more complicated than meets the eye or is worth describing in detail here.
That’s why the usual development of vaccines is a 5-10 year process.

Virulence of the disease, transmissibility, treatment options, local resources, cost and adverse effects are just a few of the determinants of whether or not vaccines are the right option. So many variables it’s impossible to say “the disease has a 5% death rate therefore we are going to vaccinate the entire population”. There has to be a net benefit, which is incredibly difficult to quantify sometimes.

For example, if for every 100 people who caught the disease 5 died, yet hardly anyone caught the disease would it be worth it? And if it was highly contagious but had a extraordinarily low death rate then likewise would it be worth it?
And what if the vaccines were extraordinarily expensive?

And an infinite number of permutations in between.
This is not being an “anti-vaxxer”. These are the factors that the regulatory bodies take into account in order to decide whether to authorise a vaccine or not.

In regards to Covid, my opinion is that vaccines are an essential tool but not necessarily the sole answer. Hope that helps broaden the conversation a bit here

Stok wrote:

Genuine question, at what death rate would people forgo their beliefs and support vaccination, without questioning government and health advices?

2.5%? 5%? 25%?

Say a new variant came out, killing 1 in 20 people, hospitalising 1 in 10, just as transmissible as Omicron.

Lockdowns are announced - who would protest?

1 month later, 'big Pharma' comes out with a booster, reduces risk of death by 75%, reduces risk of transmission by a degree (not exactly known) - who would take it? Who would rely on their own immunity?

Is it just a question of severity of covid which has shaped your position?

I don't think its that's simple.

Because the risk will always vary by a huge amount based on age, weight and health.

It would be pretty easy to be a young fit and healthy Covid anti vaxer with low risk from Covid, but you would have to a nutcase to be a Covid anti vaxer and be 60+, obese, with other health issues.

Ben Harding wrote:

Vic Local wrote:

Stok wrote:

Genuine question, at what death rate would people forgo their beliefs and support vaccination, without questioning government and health advices?

2.5%? 5%? 25%?

Say a new variant came out, killing 1 in 20 people, hospitalising 1 in 10, just as transmissible as Omicron.

Lockdowns are announced - who would protest?

1 month later, 'big Pharma' comes out with a booster, reduces risk of death by 75%, reduces risk of transmission by a degree (not exactly known) - who would take it? Who would rely on their own immunity?

Is it just a question of severity of covid which has shaped your position?

I reckon a bunch of the idiot posters here would be the types begging doctors for vaccines as they struggled to breath in ER.
Evidence means nothing to them until it becomes very personal.

Straight away with the aggression. Are you always angry and extremely pissed off at everyone Viclocal? Nearly every post is riddled with venom, across the board. Having that much hate in your heart, even online, can't be good for you man.

No Ben, I'm a pretty happy go lucky type of bloke. Just won't cop opinions that are dangers to others. Hence my aggression to anti-vax idiots and racists.

Hey Vic, a couple of my posts were neither anti-vax, racist nor a danger to anybody yet you still called me an idiot

tylerdurden wrote:

...That’s why the usual development of vaccines is a 5-10 year process....

...There has to be a net benefit....

...These are the factors that the regulatory bodies take into account in order to decide whether to authorise a vaccine or not...

In regards to Covid, my opinion is that vaccines are an essential tool but not necessarily the sole answer.

In regards to your first point, we had a global pandemic response, the likes of which we've never seen, in a time when information sharing and availability is beyond comparison to the past. I'm quite happy to reject the idea that the vaccines were rushed dangerously, and accept the much more likely idea that we produced these vaccines in a manner which should be celebrated as a triumph for modern science and regulatory processes.

You've stated your opinion, but you also have stated that regulatory bodies look at this information before making a call - so do you not trust these regulatory bodies?

Which goes back to my original question - if the death rate was being splashed across headlines that it was 1 in 20 people dying, would you still hold your opinion?

tylerdurden wrote:

Hey Vic, a couple of my posts were neither anti-vax, racist nor a danger to anybody yet you still called me an idiot

You just pushed a bullshit treatment (which does have consequences) so calling you an idiot was absolutely accurate.

indo-dreaming wrote:

I don't think its that's simple.

Because the risk will always vary by a huge amount based on age, weight and health.

It would be pretty easy to be a young fit and healthy Covid anti vaxer with low risk from Covid, but you would have to a nutcase to be a Covid anti vaxer and be 60+, obese, with other health issues.

You've highlighted an issue....so if it killed 1 in 30 people under 60 and in good health, but 1 in 5 people over 60 with underlying issues....would people accept a vaccine mandate? If the vaccines reportedly had side effects for 1 in 10,0000 people....killed 1 in a million.....could you imagine how screwed we'd be?

A disease with 1 in 20 death rate with extraordinarily low transmissibility, good quality treatment options, and an extraordinarily high cost vaccine with frequent and devastating adverse effects then no, I would not recommend vaccination

Fair enough Vic, you were justified in calling me an idiot.
Just make sure you add that to your list of justifications for being aggressive: “a person who states an opinion that I think is bullshit”

tylerdurden wrote:

Fair enough Vic, you were justified in calling me an idiot.
Just make sure you add that to your list of justifications for being aggressive: “a person who states an opinion that I think is bullshit”

No tylerdurden. Your bullshit opinion has to be a danger to others. Pushing quack medical treatments qualifies. If you want to push ridiculous opinions that are only a danger to yourself, that's fine with me.

Gideon M-K has said on the record it is plausible that Ivermectin has a 5-10% benefit.
Ivermectin has an extraordinarily good safety profile.
I’m pro vax and have been vaccinated.
Not sure anything I’m saying is dangerous to others

Harvey Norman claiming his business nous in observing the need for RAT tests during the preceding omicron outbreaks in Ireland and Malaysia is how he came to stockpile RAT tests in September.

Cool story Bro. Too bad Omicron was only discovered late November. And that omicron became established throughout the rest of the world, Ex South Africa, virtually simultaneously.

Someone is telling porky pies!

https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/the-smart-companies-that-avoid...

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

"This is a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die," Biden said.

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Not true

7 deaths, all elderly. None were fully faxed.

It’s not hard to find the truth. But to deliberately post incorrect info to suit a bias is poor form.

Id say blocking the conversation around possible effective treatments to go with Covid/vaccines is alot more dangerous to public health.
I guess the World Health Organisation are idiots too..
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indias-ivermectin-bla...

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Make sure you check your maths / stats on this, burleigh: remember that 90%+ are vaxx, so the death rate at a numeric level cannot be directly compared between these two. Rather, you need to see the death rate per 100k or similar, for each group, vaxxed and non-vaxx. There's a name for this type of statistical comparison failure, but I can't remember it...who cares. The maths still stands and makes sense.

Also, not directed at you specifically, but I've also looked into Invermectin quite a bit and found nothing substantial to back the various claims of effectiveness against COVID. It is interesting to note the Merck statement on their own website about its use: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-...
Go figure...people still want to take it after that? Why wouldn't Merck want to make money from it? Note also that Merck are still trying to develop their own COVID vaxx...so there's really no good reason for them to not want to market something in the meantime to make money (like all 'Big Pharma' does, right???).

The key takeaway from Boris Johnson & friends constantly having parties while the rest of the country was under lockdown seems not so much the personal hypocrisy angle, but that they never actually believed having parties represented a genuine public health risk

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 16, 2022

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Not true

Straight from the ABC website:

The Health Minister says all seven people who died had not received a booster shot. Two of the people were unvaccinated.

Notice how they said “booster shot”

You’re wrong Toadkill, 5 were “fully vaccinated” but they had not received their 3rd.

gray wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Make sure you check your maths / stats on this, burleigh: remember that 90%+ are vaxx, so the death rate at a numeric level cannot be directly compared between these two. Rather, you need to see the death rate per 100k or similar, for each group, vaxxed and non-vaxx. There's a name for this type of statistical comparison failure, but I can't remember it...who cares. The maths still stands and makes sense.

Also, not directed at you specifically, but I've also looked into Invermectin quite a bit and found nothing substantial to back the various claims of effectiveness against COVID. It is interesting to note the Merck statement on their own website about its use: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-...
Go figure...people still want to take it after that? Why wouldn't Merck want to make money from it? Note also that Merck are still trying to develop their own COVID vaxx...so there's really no good reason for them to not want to market something in the meantime to make money (like all 'Big Pharma' does, right???).

Sorry mate but you’re wrong. Australia is around 78% fully vaccinated

Roadkill wrote:

7 deaths, all elderly. None were fully faxed.

It’s not hard to find the truth. But to deliberately post incorrect info to suit a bias is poor form.

You have just lied. Again. Horrible form from you but I expect nothing less. Hiding from the truth

Hope this works.
https://ibb.co/cyytJVC

burleigh wrote:

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Not true

Straight from the ABC website:

The Health Minister says all seven people who died had not received a booster shot. Two of the people were unvaccinated.

Notice how they said “booster shot”

You’re wrong Toadkill, 5 were “fully vaccinated” but they had not received their 3rd.

Fully vaccinated is 2 shots and a booster. Thus, none were fully vaxed.

Gray, the Merck statement in that link you provided included this quote:

“A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

However, this study from 2013 says something a bit different. Apparently the study was commissioned by Merck.

https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009127002237994?si...

Remember also back when Merck released that statement at the start of 2021 they were in the process of developing their own anti-viral Molnupiravir for market. They have the patent for Molnupiravir but Ivermectin is out of patent

Take two:
[img]https://ibb.co/cyytJVC [/image]
OK blokes, how do you publish an image here?

burleigh wrote:

gray wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Make sure you check your maths / stats on this, burleigh: remember that 90%+ are vaxx, so the death rate at a numeric level cannot be directly compared between these two. Rather, you need to see the death rate per 100k or similar, for each group, vaxxed and non-vaxx. There's a name for this type of statistical comparison failure, but I can't remember it...who cares. The maths still stands and makes sense.

Also, not directed at you specifically, but I've also looked into Invermectin quite a bit and found nothing substantial to back the various claims of effectiveness against COVID. It is interesting to note the Merck statement on their own website about its use: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-...
Go figure...people still want to take it after that? Why wouldn't Merck want to make money from it? Note also that Merck are still trying to develop their own COVID vaxx...so there's really no good reason for them to not want to market something in the meantime to make money (like all 'Big Pharma' does, right???).

Sorry mate but you’re wrong. Australia is around 78% fully vaccinated

Wha?
NSW is at 95% 16yrs + fully vaccintaed.
QLD is at 90% 16yrs +.

So, despite being less than 5% of the NSW population, they make up 17%+ of the deaths.

Could you imagine how screwed we'd be if the 95% listened to idiots like you?

On another forum, a 70 year old triple vaxxed with some unspecified health condition is convinced that if he gets Covid he will die.

The choice in his eyes is permanent lockdown for all or his own death. He is angry.

That is where safety, safety, safety and danger, danger, danger can end up.

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Not true

Straight from the ABC website:

The Health Minister says all seven people who died had not received a booster shot. Two of the people were unvaccinated.

Notice how they said “booster shot”

You’re wrong Toadkill, 5 were “fully vaccinated” but they had not received their 3rd.

Fully vaccinated is 2 shots and a booster. Thus, none were fully vaxed.

Really? So you’re not classed as fully vaccinated with two jabs anymore? Since when?

Take 3.

Stok wrote:

burleigh wrote:

gray wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Make sure you check your maths / stats on this, burleigh: remember that 90%+ are vaxx, so the death rate at a numeric level cannot be directly compared between these two. Rather, you need to see the death rate per 100k or similar, for each group, vaxxed and non-vaxx. There's a name for this type of statistical comparison failure, but I can't remember it...who cares. The maths still stands and makes sense.

Also, not directed at you specifically, but I've also looked into Invermectin quite a bit and found nothing substantial to back the various claims of effectiveness against COVID. It is interesting to note the Merck statement on their own website about its use: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-...
Go figure...people still want to take it after that? Why wouldn't Merck want to make money from it? Note also that Merck are still trying to develop their own COVID vaxx...so there's really no good reason for them to not want to market something in the meantime to make money (like all 'Big Pharma' does, right???).

Sorry mate but you’re wrong. Australia is around 78% fully vaccinated

Wha?
NSW is at 95% 16yrs + fully vaccintaed.
QLD is at 90% 16yrs +.

So, despite being less than 5% of the NSW population, they make up 17%+ of the deaths.

Could you imagine how screwed we'd be if the 95% listened to idiots like you?

That’s would be fair if they didn’t include people under 16 in their other stats, but they do. Including unvaccinated in hospital.

So until that changes 78% of Australia is vaccinated.

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Not true

Straight from the ABC website:

The Health Minister says all seven people who died had not received a booster shot. Two of the people were unvaccinated.

Notice how they said “booster shot”

You’re wrong Toadkill, 5 were “fully vaccinated” but they had not received their 3rd.

Fully vaccinated is 2 shots and a booster. Thus, none were fully vaxed.

Lol

So burleigh, you're happy to scream and carry on about kids not dying from covid to push your anti-vase bullshit, but not too proud to include them in your percentage of the Aus population vaxxed stats to help bolster your pathetically fragile argument.
Got it.

gray wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Hey Vic,
17 deaths in NSW today - 14 fully vaccinated
7 deaths in QLD - 5 fully jabbed.

You seeing the beginning of the pattern yet?

Your jab doesn’t work

Make sure you check your maths / stats on this, burleigh: remember that 90%+ are vaxx, so the death rate at a numeric level cannot be directly compared between these two. Rather, you need to see the death rate per 100k or similar, for each group, vaxxed and non-vaxx. There's a name for this type of statistical comparison failure, but I can't remember it...who cares. The maths still stands and makes sense.

Also, not directed at you specifically, but I've also looked into Invermectin quite a bit and found nothing substantial to back the various claims of effectiveness against COVID. It is interesting to note the Merck statement on their own website about its use: https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-...
Go figure...people still want to take it after that? Why wouldn't Merck want to make money from it? Note also that Merck are still trying to develop their own COVID vaxx...so there's really no good reason for them to not want to market something in the meantime to make money (like all 'Big Pharma' does, right???).

@gray , what is this vax that Merck are still trying to make ? Merck isn’t the only company that makes ivermectin, in india it’s made for about 10cents a tablet or less . Why are doctors working in ICUs in the US using ivermectin as part of their treatment if it doesn’t as you say work ?

burleigh wrote:

That’s would be fair if they didn’t include people under 16 in their other stats, but they do. Including unvaccinated in hospital.

So until that changes 78% of Australia is vaccinated.

Simply referring to your post, where you were pointing out the daily deaths in NSW and QLD as if it's some golden proof of your own intelligence.

You know, the one were you said out of the 17 deaths in NSW, 3 were unvaccinated. in which case I reminded you that 95%+ of the over 16 population is vaccinated.....now, unless those 17 deaths included any under 16yr olds....which it didn't....all you did was show a pretty fucken good case for getting the vaccine.

Vic Local wrote:

So burleigh, you're happy to scream and carry on about kids not dying from covid to push your anti-vase bullshit, but not too proud to include them in your percentage of the Aus population vaxxed stats to help bolster your pathetically fragile argument.
Got it.

If a kid (under 15) goes to hospital for a broken arm, they will be included in the unvaxxed stats for hospitalisation, until that changes Australia is 78% vaccinated.
What don’t you understand about this dopey?

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

I think you’ll find that you are missing the major issue here which is your potential confusion between cause and correlation.

You blindly accept that the vaccines are as effective as stated without any real world comparison…..unless you start comparing the outcomes between highly vaccinated developed nations and unvaccinated undeveloped nations.

Which will soon show that high vaccination rates do not equate to reduced severe covid outcomes.

You refuse to acknowledge that the people who end up in hospital are the same demographic, whether vaccinated or unvaccinated. When the vaccine fails to prevent death you glibly state that the deceased was inherently sick already , yet you fail to acknowledge that the unvaccinated are almost always in the same state.

If you understood statistics you’d concede that the GENUINE covid hospitalisation rates are so low in absolute terms compared with infection rates, that the minor relative discrepancies between the vaccinated/ unvaccinated figures are statistically insignificant.

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Yeah....it's like a blind rejection of real life results.

We've seen it with climate change, we've now seen it with vaccine effectiveness.

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Ahhh Craig, why don’t you call out Roadkill on his ridiculous post saying that your not classed as vaccinated until you’ve had your booster?

Stok wrote:

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Yeah....it's like a blind rejection of real life results.

We've seen it with climate change, we've now seen it with vaccine effectiveness.

Yep, the deaths in NSW & QLD for the past week really show the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Does the high majority of people dying fully vaccinated mean it’s working?

burleigh wrote:

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Ahhh Craig, why don’t you call out Roadkill on his ridiculous post saying that your not classed as vaccinated until you’ve had your booster?

Roadkill believes his red lining Panicometer, which has been turned up to 11 for the past couple of years, is official Australian policy.

He doesn’t realise he’s existing in a seperate sovereign state known as The Chickenshit Kingdom.

burleigh wrote:

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Ahhh Craig, why don’t you call out Roadkill on his ridiculous post saying that your not classed as vaccinated until you’ve had your booster?

I think this is a grey area at the moment, I got in to a robust discussion with a mate about it. I was of the same impression as you Burleigh and he was adamant that “fully vaxxed” now is 2 shots and booster

burleigh wrote:

Stok wrote:

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Yeah....it's like a blind rejection of real life results.

We've seen it with climate change, we've now seen it with vaccine effectiveness.

Yep, the deaths in NSW & QLD for the past week really show the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Does the high majority of people dying fully vaccinated mean it’s working?

Yeah I'm out Burleigh....maybe we can chat about this later in the year, once you've made it through the first half of year 10 mathematics.

Stok wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Stok wrote:

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Yeah....it's like a blind rejection of real life results.

We've seen it with climate change, we've now seen it with vaccine effectiveness.

Yep, the deaths in NSW & QLD for the past week really show the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Does the high majority of people dying fully vaccinated mean it’s working?

Yeah I'm out Burleigh....maybe we can chat about this later in the year, once you've made it through the first half of year 10 mathematics.

"Year 10 mathematics"? That's generous.
It's more like year 6 or 7 maths.
Geez it must have been a tough job teaching burleigh. He can't understand really basic stuff, but thinks he's right all the fucking time. He probably caused a few early retirements!!

Craig wrote:

They just don't get simple stats. That's the main issue..

Most of the anti stuff argument tends to be on the fringes or using a small point and extrapolating that out to cover the existing belief or belief system. Common when black and white situations don't exist.

I am guessing misunderstanding how to apply statistics falls into this and if its a case of the conscious mind suspending logic thought to comply with the belief.