COVID-19 Health System Overload Forecaster
I watched the video supafreak. Not terribly impressed. A lot of it was well known historical material. When he (eventually) got on to covid he presented a model of the immune response that I haven't studied. I would need to do some research on that to find out if it is a well accepted model or just a hypothesis. His explanation was clear enough but he did not present any convincing supporting evidence. Most of it seemed to be from work his students had done with very small samples. Finally he proposed a whole range of treatments that had no connection to what he had previously been talking about and just asserted that they would be effective. Is he right about the treatments he proposes? Probably not since they have been reasonably well studied. I supose he might have come up with some magic sequence for adminstering them, it's within the bounds of possibility, but if he hasn't persuaded enough of his colleagues in the immunology field that he is on to something, it is unlikely. Youtube is not the first choice site of publication for scientific breakthroughs. I will have a bit of a hunt around and see what I find.
"Clancy’s own institution says that the emeritus professor (an honorary title) does not consider him ‘THE expert’ you should be listening to when it comes to COVID-19 treatments.
“Robert Clancy is not speaking on behalf of the University of Newcastle when offering his opinion on this issue. The University has not funded his research since 2009 and he retired in 2013. The University does not consider Robert Clancy a subject matter expert on COVID-19,”
When your own institution disowns you.......there goes your credibility. Shit, now I have to try and find out if there was any truth at all in it or he was just another fabulist!
Sweden, Denmark pause Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for younger age groups https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/sweden-pause...
@blindboy , fauci is on you tube , does that mean he also shouldn’t be listened too ? I think Clancy knows a bit more about vaccines and immunology than your average joe . His resume is pretty impressive . His prediction that the vaccine won’t be that effective in the elderly with pre existing conditions seems to be accurate if you look at what’s happening in Israel . He still advocates for vaccines and also early treatment , within the first few days . The new drugs that are coming are for early treatment , within the first few days . Borody has always said covid was an easily treated disease if treated early , something governments in the western world have ignored . Do you rate Borody as a Dr with experience and knowledge of covid ?
Blowin wrote:No. If people’s parents want protection they got vaccinated themselves. Why do vaccinated people need others to be back of or them to be protected? When you go to the beach and put on sun screen to protect you from the sun do you force everyone else to do the same to help protect you further? Of course not. Once you’re protected, you’re protected right?
Even my parents got it because they felt pressured by the media. My mother in law got vaccinated because of the virus due to the fact that the morning TV shows they watch made them think that no one survived the death plague. My father in law only got it to shut her up and he’s mid eighties with Parkinson’s.
In case you haven't registered yet...you wear sunblock for your protection...if you walk past someone you don't give them sunburn, you don't shed sunburn, you don't touch something and someone comes along and touches it and gets sunburn.
Your examples are becoming more ridiculous and weak daily.
Btw..didn't you tell us all, a week ago, your brother has parkinsons....and can't go anywhere?
Yeah i guess you're right Stu and SF.
If most people go unvaxed, does anyone know if the virus will continue to get more deadly and severe? If most are vaxed the virus will eventually die out?
Blowin wrote:“Hospital admissions are counted in this report where the COVID-19 diagnosis is at least two weeks before or six weeks after the onset of illness. This does not necessarily mean all hospitalisations were attributable to the COVID-19 diagnosis. “
https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/in-focus/hos...
Hey blowin I would be surprised to see if chance hospital/ICU admissions not related to covid would make up any sort of meaningful percentage. What's the likelihood that the average 30-39 year old is going lend up in hospital over any given 8 week period? Even conservatively it wouldn't be more than 1%.
supafreak Fauci has a large medical team of specialists who are the current experts in the field. Your bloke retired from an honorary position 8 years ago and does not quote evidence from any source but his own, extremely limited, research. Fauci uses Youtube amongst the many other means of communication he has open to him. Has any other credible organisation published your bloke?
As for Borody, well he's your man for a stomach ulcer or a fecal transplant but has no particular expertise relevant to covid. You know plumbers and electricians are both tradesmen, but you wouldn't hire a plumber to rewire your house. Gastroenterologists and infectious disease specialists are both doctors but you really shouldn't get a gatroenterologist to treat your infectious disease.
blindboy wrote:supafreak Fauci has a large medical team of specialists who are the current experts in the field. Your bloke retired from an honorary position 8 years ago and does not quote evidence from any source but his own, extremely limited, research. Fauci uses Youtube amongst the many other means of communication he has open to him. Has any other credible organisation published your bloke?
As for Borody, well he's your man for a stomach ulcer or a fecal transplant but has no particular expertise relevant to covid. You know plumbers and electricians are both tradesmen, but you wouldn't hire a plumber to rewire your house. Gastroenterologists and infectious disease specialists are both doctors but you really shouldn't get a gatroenterologist to treat your infectious disease.
You can’t be serious , Borody and a team of doctors have treated over 500 Australians for covid , none have died , he’s submitting his findings plus other trials he’s been involved with in the US to the TGA , seeking approval for his triple therapy . He also treated many doctors in the US for covid and protocols for early treatment . Maybe you should have a bit closer look at Clancy and see what he achieved in his career . If you want links I can supply but have already done so previously , some very recent .
Please provide a link to his treatment record. My understanding is that if he did it in Australia it was not approved.
https://www.techarp.com/science/borody-ivermectin-therapy/
blindboy wrote:Please provide a link to his treatment record. My understanding is that if he did it in Australia it was not approved.
https://www.techarp.com/science/borody-ivermectin-therapy/
Now that link is definitely suss , but each to their own . Here’s a bit of background for Clancy who you readily dismiss. https://centrefordigestivediseases.com/team/professor-robert-llewellyn-c.... https://www.science.org.au/covid19/experts/robert-clancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Clancy_(doctor) Here’s the recent article from AFR in which Borody is mentioned . https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-true-believers-backing-iv... The TGA has stated that ivermectin can only be used in clinical trials . If you want more simply google pubmed and Borody name and some of the overseas trials he’s been involved with come up . Edit I understand that Wikipedia isn’t the best source, they have gone a bit weird in the past few years .
supafreak I saw most of those links earlier. The afr one is locked. I don't doubt his qualifications or his achievements. I think his basic analysis of the role of the gut in the immune response to covid could well be accurate and could possibly lead to a better vaccine or treatments down the line. The problem is that he has no new evidence for his treatment and the existing evidence is against it. I will fact check the info in the link I provided.
@blindboy , I find it strange that you choose to believe techarp over Borody who has a international reputation as does Clancy. Have you ever watched any ABC on the life and background of Borody ? Doesn’t strike me as a man chasing money. But if you choose to believe this guy that’s your business, I’m bias towards Australian doctors that have proven themselves. 
@blindboy if you want the AFR link and it comes up locked then simply google AFR the true believers in ivermectin . You should then be able to read the whole article . The doctor at the end of article doesn’t believe ivermectin works but then again he hasn’t treated anyone with it .
supafreak I trusted that because almost every statement has a link to the source and if you click through they back up the statements. Research of this kind was part of my job for a long time. What I notice now is that searches tend to show a lot of unreliable sources at the top of the list. This was never a problem until recently. There are also a lot of pretentiously named sites and organisations that, when researched, are revealed to be highly biased fronts for various views and political groups designed to add credibility to their preferred views.
@blindboy , gotta agree with you 100% on searches with unreliable sources, its a different world these days , fact checking the fact checkers is a whole new game . Nothing is simple anymore and who to believe is harder and harder . The line “ trust the science “ is a good example as it all depends on the science and scientists. I want to believe government agencies and big pharma are 100% correct in what they tell us , it’s just their past corruption and bs sometimes clouds my judgement.
It is a huge problem supafreak and is responsible for numerous issues being misunderstood. For me I accept journals like Nature as the gold standard. They have a track record of accurately translating complex issues into a simpler form as well as publishing the highest quality peer reviewed research with all the detail.
Going back to the current issue, the afr quote a study from the American Journal of Therapeutics withoutvreally analysing its quality.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-iverm...
@blindboy , I think you need to also research politifact , start with who funds them , 2 big contributors are Facebook and tik tok . Again not easy is it . There is a list of past contributors as well https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/
Also blindboy the peer review on the article in the American journal of therapeutics , 3 of the reviewers were US senior government officials , 2 from the FDA and 1 from the military .
I probably need to make a long post on this supsfreak so I will leave it for a while.
No problem blindboy , nice to have a back and forth without all the hostility and insults . Good thing we have surfing to cool off in eh .
Yeh it's a pleasure to have a civilised exchange of views. I had a run of five days of overhead offshore conditions so I took a rest day today to catch up with some household chores.
I am just going to go through some basic stuff. Apologies if I cover ground you are already familiar with. As a science teacher I have a great deal of confidence in the way science functions and the reliability of its findings. Over my career I had the opportunity to visit many labs, particularly biology labs of various types from genetics to food safety. I also have a number of relatives involved in science. One lectures in nuclear physics and another was a senior science bureaucrat involved in selecting projects for government funding.
My impression from all these contacts is, that like most people in other areas, scientists go about their jobs with great integrity. They are human, so they make mistakes and sometimes make bad decisions but they are subject to greater checks and balances than most workers, particularly when they publish.
The effectiveness of peer review is often under estimated. It is not a pat on the back from your mates, it is a chance to discredit your competitors for the limited grants and tenure positions available in your field. Both sides are vulnerable as mistakes can reduce an all important reputation that has taken years or decades to build. Deliberate misrepresentation or manipulation of data is career suicide.
That is science. But there is also an increasing fringe of "scientists" who have essentially become hired propagandists for vested interests. Their role is to use their knowledge to create doubt where it doesn't exist and to exaggerate it where it does. For example there are probably thousands of "institutes" and "journals" online with impressive names that are just outlets for fossil fuel industry obfuscation on climate science.
On top of that we also have media outlets of various sizes, from the Murdoch media down to the Facebook ravers, that have deep political connections and whose content is designed to influence voters. In the current debate misinformation about covid and the effectiveness of treatments that have not been approved is designed to build support for the UAP who can then direct their preferences to the LNP.
As a result of these processes we have the kind of passionate social media posters who scream their take on the latest misinformation from the sources I have described and refuse to consider the real evidence, dismissing it as part of some vast conspiracy or as the result of corruption. Meanwhile the genuinely corrupt who fund so much of the misinformation laugh all the way to the nearest tax haven.
Anyway that's the way I see it. I'll be interested in your take.
good chat
surprisinly so...
what stands out to me from this chat - considering blindboy loves to bleat on about 'neoliberalism'... - is how the medical system has been grossly grossly corrupted by PPP's (public private partnerships) ... a cornerstone of neoliberalism...
"A few weeks ago, the center-left government of the Australian state of Victoria announced new restrictions to combat COVID-19. Victoria has already had, by some measures, the longest lockdown of anywhere in the world, employing curfews, curbs on outdoor activities, and the closure of children’s playgrounds.
The latest rules targeted the construction industry, closing down building-site “tearooms,” where workers escape the elements for breaks and meals, and imposing a vaccine mandate for the entire sector with little notice. Soon after, several construction workers took part in a peaceful protest..."
"...Yet in their response, the authorities (as well as their fellow Australian progressive politicians and commentators) have illustrated how the left, both in Australia and abroad, has largely abandoned working-class voters and ignored their concerns. This progressive political binary—one in which those opposed to harsh restrictions aimed at combatting COVID-19 are castigated for wanting to “let it rip”—has exploded during the pandemic, alienating huge numbers of people and aiding far-right recruitment..."
"...At the same time, progressive politics itself has become more elitist. Elements of the left have adopted what the Australian writer Jeff Sparrow calls a “smug politics,” one that looks down upon the working class. “Rather than treating working people as an agency for change or a constituency to be served,” Sparrow writes, progressives have “publicly declared them a problem to be solved.” This paternalistic worldview scolds workers for their failures, and says that a strong state is needed to tell them how to live their lives.
This trend has become more prominent during the pandemic. After the initial success of Australia’s response in 2020—we suffered far fewer hospitalizations and deaths than the United States and Europe—multiple cities this year have been plunged into months-long lockdowns, many of which have been harsher than those of the year before. Today in Melbourne, more than 80 percent of the eligible population has had the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, yet a nighttime curfew is still in place, outdoor gatherings are limited, and city residents cannot travel more than 15 kilometers (about nine miles) from their homes. Drinking alcohol outdoors, which is legal in Australia, has also been banned. Although the state has eased some of these rules, other restrictions, such as the bans on outdoor drinking and workplace curbs such as those in the construction industry, are harsher than last year’s regulations..."
harsher than last year's regulations... how the fuck is that even possible or considered, given the 'developing' knowledge?
"...Sparrow writes, progressives have “publicly declared them a problem to be solved.” This paternalistic worldview scolds workers for their failures, and says that a strong state is needed to tell them how to live their lives..."
"...In response to the earlier, more peaceful tearoom protests, however, one high-profile progressive writer in Australia said that construction workers were engaging in “man baby tantrums...
...The former Labor Party leader Bill Shorten described protesters as “man baby Nazis,”...
reminds me of some of the pompous gits on here...
"..I found that many of the people who took part were not opposed to vaccinations themselves; rather, they believed that the policy was heavy-handed and would unfairly cost people their livelihood..."
"... Jay Daniel Thompson, a communications lecturer at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, argues, “It’s not difficult to imagine how such remarks might be framed as evidence by, say, anti-vaccine groups that governmental ‘elites’ are uncaring of—indeed, actively hostile toward—their constituents.”
The far right was also able to capitalize on simplistic narratives that labeled all participants as white supremacists or extremists. As Elise Thomas, an intelligence analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, notes, far-right groups could turn that labeling around, telling protesters who are not white supremacists that elites are clearly lying, and if elites are lying about this, then what else might they be lying about?..."
clearly lying indeed... to what end? ....well not the one you wanted...
maybe...
or, maybe isolating people and purely signalling of virtue are the actual deep down motivations... sure seems that way...
because self awareness, search for truth, and any capacity to assess cause and effect appears a big fat zero...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/covid-politics-far-rig...
stunet wrote:You see this is the thing, GS.
You can post that, and believe it, and someone else can post something diametrically opposed, and they'll believe that.
Then you can post another such video doubting, and someone else can post another such video opposing.
And on and on it goes down the road of confirmation bias. Say hello to Jim Banks while you're there.
I've found it best to avoid all strident beliefs and embrace the chaos. I don't know, you don't know, Blowin doesn't know, though we've got to act, right?
I've seen enough through recent hospital visits to suggest something is deeply wrong with the medical system, and it worries me that, should the situation devolve, all medical emergencies would become jeopardised. So all this talk of infection rates, vaccine efficacy, mortality percentages is just a nonsense, it can be opposed through videos such as the one you posted, or it can be just as easily supported.
However, there's a practical reality that we're on the brink of facing, and I think it's best to act in a way that reduces that risk. I don't know for sure that I'm doing the right thing, but I'd rather be circumspect and safe then cavalier and regretful.
Best comment so far , by far...
"cavalier and regretful" ..I like that one ..story of my life.
Good read Sypkan...
It ends with outright ban on social media platforms
It ends with censoring any insignificant Political representation
It ends with Govt banning real time daily Vax data to hide their Mass Covid spread.
It ends with being banned from institutions & Libraries to learn about why Govt hide Vax data.
It ends with any hope of ever meeting up outside your door.
It ends with signaling [SOS] on a hunk of Cardbord.
It ends with Cops smashing Chix windows & smashing them into the Pavement.
It ends with Robo Cops firing weapons upon you while seeking refuge in a Place of Peace
tbb agrees that ALP are midway thru losing yet another unlosable election...how many is that now?
Internal Polling saw increased support for smaller Parties
Both ALP / Libs rushed thru a Quickie to knock out any upstarts splittin' the pack...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-26/federal-election-rule-change-part...
*Parties needed to Upsize from 500 > 1,500
*Name can't be too similar to existing parties
*Pre Poll will be cut short from 21 days down to 12 days
Big Parties Mandate yer right to Vax but Limit yer right to Vote...Trust Us!
Support for Alternative Govt Parties has risen from 5% in Aug to now 13% of Federal Vote..
This being extra to One Nation & Greens...& don't that get ALP all riled up.
It's getting under ALP skin it is...how bloody dare Clive hand out his TGA Menus.
Red Army Unions won't bankroll the ALP or Libs & are now giving workers a right or glimmer of hope!
Both ALP & Libs won't stand for that...already planing to crush them like bugs!
Explains why Bullies are clamping down on "Unofficial "Anything" Misinformation" Govt decides Facts!
This is more about fine tuning the banning of Electoral Flyers.
The Uprising gets more real with each head ALP kicks...just keep kicking more heads for a Poll bounce!
Reckon the Poll leaders have gotta stamp out any wildcard viral uprising before it infects them...
ALP Bullies are losing their election & will exploit any majority Vax Vote ...Vote ALP for Vaxer rights!
Election Slogan : Vote Vax > Destroy all Monsters...that should win ALP the Election! Good Job Albo!
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/10/06/poll-o06.html
Clive's War Chest is massive...
https://www.northernbeachesreview.com.au/story/7430087/palmer-promises-b...
https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/10/05/craig-kelly-clive-palmer-youtube-ad...
Wow udo that's radical. Depending on the concentration of the bleach, if given IV you would also expect extravasation and consequently nasty puncture site infections as well
Yes Clive's war chest is massive and he intends to use it next election just as he did in the previous one. The first trick is to round up the loons whose ideas are too far gone for the LNP to consider........and send their votes to the LNP. Gross hypocrisy but we expect that from Clive. The second is to use the protection of a political party, so desperate for members they are press ganging random people to boost their pathetic numbers, to spread blatant lies about ALP policy. All this for the sole purpose of boosting the BFB's personal wealth. Vote r Clive? Sucker! He's pissing himself on the way to the back and giving thanks that you are buying him time to unload his stranded assets.
Had a guy in today who was telling me his son lives in Singapore. They get 30k cases a day...schools and kids are spreading it pretty fast...the kids are getting covid and the majority are not showing symptoms but they take it home and parents and grandparents are catching it...grandparents are the ones suffering the most.
UK's school went back in September, now recording absentees +- 200,000, with about half that confirmed COVID and 84,000 suspected.
Not sure of mortality rates, but fuck, I spent six months watching premature twins cling to life...did 200km/h up Pittwater Road at 3am with the lion-hearted one blue in the face, his breathing monitor silent for two minutes. They both now have fairly controlled asthma but docs consider them at risk should things ramp up.
Concerned? Yeah...
blindboy wrote:Yeh it's a pleasure to have a civilised exchange of views. I had a run of five days of overhead offshore conditions so I took a rest day today to catch up with some household chores.
I am just going to go through some basic stuff. Apologies if I cover ground you are already familiar with. As a science teacher I have a great deal of confidence in the way science functions and the reliability of its findings. Over my career I had the opportunity to visit many labs, particularly biology labs of various types from genetics to food safety. I also have a number of relatives involved in science. One lectures in nuclear physics and another was a senior science bureaucrat involved in selecting projects for government funding.
My impression from all these contacts is, that like most people in other areas, scientists go about their jobs with great integrity. They are human, so they make mistakes and sometimes make bad decisions but they are subject to greater checks and balances than most workers, particularly when they publish.
The effectiveness of peer review is often under estimated. It is not a pat on the back from your mates, it is a chance to discredit your competitors for the limited grants and tenure positions available in your field. Both sides are vulnerable as mistakes can reduce an all important reputation that has taken years or decades to build. Deliberate misrepresentation or manipulation of data is career suicide.
That is science. But there is also an increasing fringe of "scientists" who have essentially become hired propagandists for vested interests. Their role is to use their knowledge to create doubt where it doesn't exist and to exaggerate it where it does. For example there are probably thousands of "institutes" and "journals" online with impressive names that are just outlets for fossil fuel industry obfuscation on climate science.
On top of that we also have media outlets of various sizes, from the Murdoch media down to the Facebook ravers, that have deep political connections and whose content is designed to influence voters. In the current debate misinformation about covid and the effectiveness of treatments that have not been approved is designed to build support for the UAP who can then direct their preferences to the LNP.
As a result of these processes we have the kind of passionate social media posters who scream their take on the latest misinformation from the sources I have described and refuse to consider the real evidence, dismissing it as part of some vast conspiracy or as the result of corruption. Meanwhile the genuinely corrupt who fund so much of the misinformation laugh all the way to the nearest tax haven.
Anyway that's the way I see it. I'll be interested in your take.
I'm liking some of these longer posts you're writing BB, and there's some others that I intend to respond to.
Thos post from Stu is also spot on and pertinent:
stunet wrote:You can post that, and believe it, and someone else can post something diametrically opposed, and they'll believe that.
Then you can post another such video doubting, and someone else can post another such video opposing.
And on and on it goes down the road of confirmation bias. Say hello to Jim Banks while you're there.
I've found it best to avoid all strident beliefs and embrace the chaos. I don't know, you don't know, Blowin doesn't know, though we've got to act, right?
I think we're now living firmly and squarely in the age of chaos, maximum misinformation and confusion, and breakdown of the media and scientific research and reporting.
There is now very little factual basis in media content. Media reporting and outlets/providers are infected by hidden interests and agendas from government and business. The media is no longer a tool to neutrally, factually report what's happening in society and the world. It's now just a tool for swaying opinion and support for corporate and government interests and agendas. Most media articles are nowadays just opinion pieces, infomercials, advertorials, etc, designed to appear neutral and factual, but are just advertising in disguise or deceptively pushing some kind of belief or agenda or product... People are unable to discern between what is advertising and opinion, and what is neutral, factual reporting.
Also, there are "news" articles to cater for every possible opinion and belief a person or group can hold in society, in other words, to cater for every possible media consumer target market. The success of these media articles is measured by analytics services such as google analytics, and the media gravitates to reporting and publishing what is rating highest (being clicked on the most) as measured by these analytics services, instead of publishing articles based on some kind of media leadership about what are important issues and events in society that should be reported.
The world of science and scientific research and reporting, including and particularly academia, is equally in breakdown. One can find conflicting and contradicting "scholarly scientific research" on any topic one pleases. Scientific reporting is also now significantly funded by and is often just a tool for government and corporate interests. The peer review process is broken, for a number of reasons (also see next paragraph). People cannot discern between high vs low quality (reputable vs non-reputable) journals with proper vs dodgy peer review process, and many journals don't have peer review processes. People cannot seem to discern between neutral vs privately funded research. People are now believing social media junk over actual scientific research, and I can see why...
Furthermore, academia is engaged in a fierce competition and battle for the foreign student dollar, which is largely being conducted via and played out through global university ranking reports. The metrics in these global university ranking systems are largely based on research output and citation volume. Universities are also engaged in competition with private sector research. As a result of this competition, the publish-or-perish culture in universities is rife and out of control, and it results in academia largely being just a pointless numbers game of publishing research papers in journals, at all costs, regardless of research and/or journal quality, or importance to and impact on society and the world. I've also previously provided links in these forums to entire websites aimed at ousting academic misconduct and research fabrication, in particular devoted to identifying research that is unable to be replicated.
Also, the editorial departments of the best, highest ranking, elite journals are filled with people from the elite universities, and consequently they operate in their own exclusive elite club and only accept publications in these journals from this exclusive elite club of universities, thus squeezing out other universities from publishing research in these elite journals. It's nearly impossible to publish research in these elite journals as an academic from lower ranking universities - the journals just immediately dismiss your submission, and don't even seem to read it. In this sense, the peer-review system, at least in the elite journals, is really only there to reinforce this elite club and the rankings of their elite universities, in order to attract the foreign (particularly Chinese) student.
In the end, the media and science are now just chaotic free-for-alls with absolutely no information content or basis in fact or importance at all.
And at the risk of repeating myself, this is all precisely just the America/US media model, and more generally the US media/government/corporate/science model. Australia needs to detach itself from the US model across all facets of society, and move in different direction.
Congratulations on your posts gsco BB and Stu !!!!!
gsco wrote:And at the risk of repeating myself, this is all precisely just the America/US media model, and more generally the US media/government/corporate/science model. Australia needs to detach itself from the US model across all facets of society, and move in different direction
.
I thnik we should legalize weed for cancer patients etc but thats the only thing i believe the US does better than us. The gun laws in USA are ridiculous.
"I'm liking some of these longer posts you're writing BB, and there's some others that I intend to respond to."
and I am liking yours
much more balanced, freer of thought, and closer to reality than old mate...
whose I also like, but geez they are infuriating
@gsco. while I share your concerns your conclusion statement is over exaggerated and defeatist. I feel some balance to your comments should note that:
media has always been about interests and power. always. its easy to ignore the rubbish and tune into the relevant.
there are ways to detect bogus journals and articles. yes they are growing in number but some critical thinking quickly can determine their reliability. i posted about this before.
yes there are fraudulent or inaccurate published papers and researchers and I share your alarm about this. However its the same scientific methods and institutions who are bringing this to the light.
reputable open source journals are taking on the traditional publishing method.
Bonza - I thought you may put your foot in your mouth after such sensible views have been posted .
The proverbial bar has risen and you then you lower it with these comments - " its easy to ignore the rubbish and tune into the relevant."
"the same scientific methods and institutions who are bringing this to the light."
Morning Hutchy. I am flattered but maybe its time you put your hard on for me away? its getting awkward.
I'm sorry I upset you so much ok. you need to let go.
btw i said river red gum - Eucalyptus camaldulensis. and no one gives a shit
"Also, there are "news" articles to cater for every possible opinion and belief a person or group can hold in society, in other words, to cater for every possible media consumer target market. The success of these media articles is measured by analytics services such as google analytics, and the media gravitates to reporting and publishing what is rating highest (being clicked on the most) as measured by these analytics services, instead of publishing articles based on some kind of media leadership about what are important issues and events in society that should be reported."
sounds a bit like the stock market... and how a computer has replaced any 'objective' assessment of 'value'...
"The world of science and scientific research and reporting, including and particularly academia, is equally in breakdown. One can find conflicting and contradicting "scholarly scientific research" on any topic one pleases. Scientific reporting is also now significantly funded by and is often just a tool for government and corporate interests. The peer review process is broken, for a number of reasons (also see next paragraph). People cannot discern between high vs low quality (reputable vs non-reputable) journals with proper vs dodgy peer review process, and many journals don't have peer review processes. People cannot seem to discern between neutral vs privately funded research. People are now believing social media junk over actual scientific research, and I can see why..."
yep, and unfortunatly it's rife through the whole system, where it seems even the 'high quality journals' are an old boys club of preconceived corporatised self fulfilling prophecies...
"Furthermore, academia is engaged in a fierce competition and battle for the foreign student dollar, which is largely being conducted via and played out through global university ranking reports. The metrics in these global university ranking systems are largely based on research output and citation volume. Universities are also engaged in competition with private sector research. As a result of this competition, the publish-or-perish culture in universities is rife and out of control, and it results in academia largely being just a pointless numbers game of publishing research papers in journals, at all costs, regardless of research and/or journal quality, or importance to and impact on society and the world. I've also previously provided links in these forums to entire websites aimed at ousting academic misconduct and research fabrication, in particular devoted to identifying research that is unable to be replicated."
seems our little all in digitisation of everything experiment has lead to a dark dark place where... we know the price of everything but the value of nothing...
'Not sure of mortality rates, but fuck, I spent six months watching premature twins cling to life...did 200km/h up Pittwater Road at 3am with the lion-hearted one blue in the face, his breathing monitor silent for two minutes. They both now have fairly controlled asthma but docs consider them at risk should things ramp up.'
Stu,
That would have been a frightening experience.
Severe asthma patients are extremely worrying when they present with an acute exacerbation...
Just quickly, asthma causes a narrowing (secondary to inflammation) of the airways. The result is the patient can inhale, but not exhale effectively, the result being gas trapping in the lungs. This leads to incredibly high pressure in the lungs causing barotrauma, not to mention hypoxia and hypercarbia (high CO2). Consequently we paralyse the patient and take over all respiratory function.
I have been in situations of having to manually decompress the chest (putting all my weight on to their thorax during the expiratory phase) of severe asthma patients. Just so we can get the trapped air out of the lungs so that the patient can then take another breath (via a bag valve mask)...really scary even in the controlled environment of a hospital resuscitation
san g - great respect for the work you do .
You may be interested to know the work that my favourite company are doing . They are Australian .
They have developed new lung diagnostic tests .
In March they received a grant from the Federal Government to develop a new scanner for babies . Scans their lungs in 4 seconds with almost no radiation .
The formed at partnership with key groups and it is now the ALHI -https://alhi.com.au/
The Asthma Foundation is one of the groups . Their CEO Michele Goldman said at the time " This program has the ability to change the lives of people with asthma " .
Firstly, Stu I really feel for you mate , your twins sound like survivors and hopefully are stronger for what they have been through , I can only imagine how stressful it’s been on your family . @ gsco , really liked your post . I thought it was well written and relevant. I apologise if this is a bit off subject but one of the things I dislike about our current government is their failure to back Australian innovation . From not following up with funds to further trial and investigate Monash university early discoveries around ivermectin, then ignoring Borody and also Petrovsky. Funding has now come from other countries and foundations to further research and development in area’s around vaccines and treatments. It’s slowed down something that has potential to benefit us and the world . They have thrown money at backing big pharma but are not interested in backing home grown innovation. It’s not just vaccines and treatments , some great ideas and inventions have had to seek investors from overseas. I don’t understand why we don’t back our own people .
Hutchy 19 wrote:san g - great respect for the work you do .
You may be interested to know the work that my favourite company are doing . They are Australian .
They have developed new lung diagnostic tests .
In March they received a grant from the Federal Government to develop a new scanner for babies . Scans their lungs in 4 seconds with almost no radiation .
The formed at partnership with key groups and it is now the ALHI -https://alhi.com.au/
The Asthma Foundation is one of the groups . Their CEO Michele Goldman said at the time " This program has the ability to change the lives of people with asthma " .
Thanks Hutch
I will have a good look at this later, looks really interesting
You are so funny Bonza . You turn me off so no excitement here . I am pretty sure you said Blue Gum and I pointed out they are also called Red Gum in Qld .
I don't care either way .
You really have no idea about much at all . I do hope you are a good surfer .
The Cult of the Vaccine Neurotic
"The jab" is just the latest story to be reported as mantra
Matt Taibbi
Oct 7
Comment
Share
Yesterday, I ran a story that had nothing to do with vaccines, about the seeming delay of the development of a drug called molnupiravir (see the above segment with the gracious hosts of The Hill: Rising for more). In the time it took to report and write that piece, conventional wisdom turned against the drug, which is now suspected of ivermectinism and other deviationist, anti-vax tendencies, in the latest iteration of our most recent collective national mania — the Cult of the Vaccine Neurotic.
The speed of the change was incredible. Just a week ago, on October 1st, the pharmaceutical giant Merck issued a terse announcement that quickly became big news. Molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral drug, “reduced the risk of hospitalization or death” of Covid-19 patients by as much as 50%, according to a study.
The “first draft of history” stories that rushed out in the ensuing minutes and hours were almost uniformly positive. AP called the news a “potentially major advance in efforts to fight the pandemic,” while National Geographic quoted a Yale specialist saying, “Having a pill that would be easy for people to take at home would be terrific.” Another interesting early reaction came from Time:
Vaccines will be the way out of the pandemic, but not everyone around the world is immunized yet, and the shots aren’t 100% effective in protecting people from getting infected with the COVID-19 virus. So antiviral drug treatments will be key to making sure that people who do get infected don’t get severely ill.
This is what news looks like before propagandists get their hands on it. Time writer Alice Park’s lede was sensible and clear. If molnupiravir works — a big if, incidentally — it’s good news for everyone, since not everyone is immunized, and the vaccines aren’t 100% effective anyway. As even Vox put it initially, molnupiravir could “help compensate for persistent gaps in Covid-19 vaccination coverage.”
Within a day, though, the tone of coverage turned. Writers began stressing a Yeah, but approach, as in, “Any new treatment is of course good, but get your fucking shot.” A CNN lede read, “A pill that could potentially treat Covid-19 is a ‘game-changer,’ but experts are emphasizing that it's not an alternative to vaccinations.” The New York Times went with, “Health officials said the drug could provide an effective way to treat Covid-19, but stressed that vaccines remained the best tool.”
If you’re thinking it was only a matter of time before the mere fact of molnupiravir’s existence would be pitched in headlines as actual bad news, you’re not wrong: Marketwatch came out with “‘It’s not a magic pill’: What Merck’s antiviral pill could mean for vaccine hesitancy” the same day Merck issued its release. The piece came out before we knew much of anything concrete about the drug’s effectiveness, let alone whether it was “magic.”
Bloomberg’s morose “No, the Merck pill won’t end the pandemic” was released on October 2nd, i.e. one whole day after the first encouraging news of a possible auxiliary treatment whose most ardent supporters never claimed would end the pandemic. This article said the pill might be cause to celebrate, but warned its emergence “shouldn’t be cause for complacency when it comes to the most effective tool to end this pandemic: vaccines.” Bloomberg randomly went on to remind readers that the unrelated drug ivermectin is a “horse de-worming agent,” before adding that if molnupiravir ends up “being viewed as a solution for those who refuse to vaccinate,” the “Covid virus will continue to persist.”
In other words, it took less than 24 hours for the drug — barely tested, let alone released yet — to be accused of prolonging the pandemic. By the third day, mentions of molnupiravir in news reports nearly all came affixed to stern reminders of its place beneath vaccines in the medical hierarchy, as in the New York Times explaining that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who initially told reporters the new drug was “impressive,” now “warned that Americans should not wait to be vaccinated because they believe they can take the pill.”
Since the start of the Trump years, we’ve been introduced to a new kind of news story, which assumes adults can’t handle multiple ideas at once, and has reporters frantically wrapping facts deemed dangerous, unorthodox, or even just insufficiently obvious in layers of disclaimers. The fear of uncontrolled audience brain-drift is now so great that even offhand references must come swaddled in these journalistic Surgeon General’s warnings, which is why whenever we read anything now, we almost always end up fighting through nests of phrases like “the debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in a lab” in order to get to whatever the author’s main point might be.
This lunacy started with the Great Lie Debate of 2016, when reporters and editors spent months publicly anguishing over whether to use “lie” in headlines of Donald Trump stories, then loudly congratulated themselves once they decided to do it. The most histrionic offender was the New York Times, previously famous for teaching readers to digest news in code (“he claimed” for years was Times-ese for “full of shit”) but now reasoned a “more muscular terminology,” connoting “a certain moral opprobrium,” was needed to distinguish the “dissembling” of a politician like Bill Clinton from Trump’s whoppers. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” could be mere falsehood, but “I will build a great great wall” required language that “stands apart.”
The key term was moral opprobrium. Moralizing was exactly what journalists were once trained not to do, at least outside the op-ed page, but it soon became a central part of the job. When they used they word “lie,” the Times explained, they wanted us to know that was because “from the childhood schoolyard to the grave, this is a word neither used nor taken lightly.” Put another way, the Times didn’t want people reading about something Donald Trump said, grasping that it was a lie, and, say, chuckling about how ridiculous it was. If the New York Times sent the word “lie” up the flagpole, they now expected an appropriately solemn salute.
This was the beginning of an era in which editors became convinced that all earth’s problems derived from populations failing to accept reports as Talmudic law. It couldn’t be people were just tuning out papers for a hundred different reasons, including sheer boredom. It had to be that their traditional work product was just too damned subtle. The only way to avoid the certain evil of audiences engaging in unsupervised pondering over information was to eliminate all possibility of subtext, through a new communication style that was 100% literal and didactic. Everyone would get the same news and also be instructed, often mid-sentence, on how to respond.
At first this expressed itself via regurgitation of Approved Unambiguous Phraseology™ handed down from official or law enforcement sources, like “Russia’s election interference activities,” e.g. “Page’s alleged coordination with Russia’s election interference activities.” However, it wasn’t long before the stage-direction factor in coverage went berserk, as I noted last year after this question by Anderson Cooper in a presidential debate:
COOPER: Mr. Vice President, President Trump has falsely accused your son of doing something wrong while serving on a company board in Ukraine. I want to point out there’s no evidence of wrongdoing by either one of you.
The phrase, “no evidence of wrongdoing,” was a mandatory add last year in all coverage involving Ukraine, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden, from the Guardian (“No evidence the younger Biden did anything illegal”) to CNBC (“There is no evidence that Trump or Giuliani has produced which shows that Hunter Biden was engaged in wrongdoing”) to Newsweek (“Although there is no evidence of illegal wrongdoing by the Bidens in those dealings”) to NBC (“No evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden”) to AP (“There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the vice president or his son”) to the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Axios, and countless others.
The language was absurd on multiple levels, beginning with its incorrectness — unless they were talking purely about a legal definition, the issue of whether or not there was “wrongdoing” in Hunter Biden accepting a no-show $50,000-a-month job from a crooked Ukrainian energy firm was a matter for readers to decide, not an issue of fact. Still, a lot of people not only swallowed it, but vomited these and other terms back up again, over and over, on social media, or to their friends and family, or to anyone at all, in what became a new way for a certain kind of person to relate to the world.
As a student in the Soviet Union I noticed subscribers to what Russians called the sovok mindset talked in interminable strings of pogovorki, i.e goofball proverbs or aphorisms you’d heard a million times before (“He who takes no risk, drinks no champagne,” or “Work isn’t a wolf, it won’t run off into the woods,” etc). This was a learned defense mechanism, adopted by a people who’d found out the hard way that anyone caught not speaking nonstop nonsense could be suspected of harboring original thoughts. Voluble stupidity is a great disguise in a society where silence is suspect.
We’re similarly becoming a nation of totalitarian nitwits, speaking in a borrowed lexicon of mandatory phrases and smelling heresy in anyone who doesn’t. This cult reflex was bad during the Russiagate years, but it’s gone into overdrive since the arrival of COVID. The CNN writer who thinks it’s necessary to put a disclaimer in the lede of a story about molnupiravir, of all things, is basically claiming he or she is afraid a theoretical unvaccinated person might otherwise read the story and be encouraged to not take the vaccine.
Except, if that theoretical unvaccinated person could be convinced by anything CNN said or did, they’d have already gotten the shot, because the network runs ten million stories a day directly imploring people to get vaccinated or die. News flash: the instinct to armor-plate even unrelated news subjects with layer after layer of insistent vaccine dogma is not for the non-immunized, who mostly don’t watch outlets like CNN or read the New York Times. Outlets apply that neurotic messaging for their own target audiences, who’ve been trained to live in terror of un-contextualized content, which everyone knows leads to Trump, fascism, and death.
I’d be the last person to claim there aren’t dumb people out there in America, but at least the audiences of channels like Fox and OAN know that content has been designed for them. The people gobbling down these pieces by Bloomberg and the Times that have the journalistic equivalent of child-proof caps on every paragraph that even parenthetically mentions COVID really believe that content has been dumbed down for some other person. They think it’s someone else who can’t handle news that vaccines work and that there also might be a pill that treats the disease, without freaking out or coming to politically unsafe conclusions. So they put up with being talked to like children — demand it, even. Which is nuts. Right? It is nuts, isn’t it?
Yep. It’s a shitstorm.
Tech companies offered “autonomy” and “free speech” whilst gathering your personal information. Using people to advertise their product. Using people to make their billions ,whilst also encouraging the naive to become self involved to the point of narcissism. Selfie sticks , duck lips and silicon tits. Bum implants, Influencers and stalkers.
Give people a false sense of sovereignty until over saturation point., (or too many whistleblowers?) ..then clamp down with censorship ,fact checkers and division tactics . Nothing is for free except love and that’s not big techs motive. It’s all about $$.” Follow the money “.. yes as it’s a very good indicator of motive and intention when you see where certain money is invested. Media outlets , news, publishing houses , scientific reports all get funding ..
Yeah it is dark days.
The rebels , the questioners, the truth seekers and ones that dare to call out bullshit are being cornered.
The Virtue signalling and the “politically correct “mindset that seems to have taken over many like a plague will eventually die of boredom. One can only hope...
Life was simpler and better before social media took the world by stealth and storm and people became glued to their mobile phones. Now we are expected to be slaves to mobile phones. That means - more $$ we have to give to them and more billions of $$ they make from us. It’s not rocket science .
Chemical jabs green ticks and microchips ? Wonder how indigenous tribes around the world feel about that ?
It is so sad .
First my mate Tony gets fined for not wearing a mask and now my mate Dan will have to fine himself for not wearing a mask .
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10071133/Daniel-Andrews-filmed-...
Just had an update on the next 6 weeks in nsw as we open up. I am now the police....I have to check all persons entering our premises. If we get caught twice with unvaccinated pax we get shut down for 6 weeks and heavy fines. Considering I bill medicare, and those that have been vaccinated are recorded against their medicare number...I think we will have some upset people. Should be an interesting time.
I've created a spreadsheet forecast which I'll update as we go..
There's also a website with live running data.. https://sites.google.com/view/stayhomeaustralia