COVID-19 Health System Overload Forecaster

Paused…not halted.

(Vic Covid Hospitalisations)
10th Sept No Vax 90% Delta strain dies off... > 8th Oct - Cases are Plummeting > 66%
10th Sept 1 dose 10% Mass Vax Ramps > 8th Oct - Cases are Skyrocketing > 26%
10th Sept Full Vax 0% Mass Vax Ramps > 8th Oct - Cases are Skyrocketing > 8%
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-update-victoria-10-september-2021
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-update-victoria-08-october-2021

N/W Melbourne claims Oz #1 record Vax Ramp 7.9%
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2021/...
N/W Melbourne claims Oz #1 record Covid Hot Spot (Over 1,000 current cases)
https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian-coronavirus-covid-19-data

Vaxerz 240% monthly Covid infection rise is OZ #1 record VOC (Vax of Concern)
Much faster & climbing well higher than Grim Reaper's Unvaxed Peak Delta cases...

Vic Health shows Vaxed are fast overwhelming Hospitals just as NSW / UK / Israel.

However! There is good news...
Least infectious Hesitants are saving Vic Health 26.6% Hospital beds per month.
Pretty sure we'll read about that in the Papers or on ACA or maybe on Gold Standard Project!
Relax...tbb promises that a misinformation epiphany will never happen in a million years!

Vic Premier will follow best Vic Health data & award unvaxed a Get outta Jail Free Card.
At Vic Health rate..the unvaxed can mop up Covid to zero cases within 3 months.

We could just mandate for first dose group to isolate during 50% infectious incubating period!
Victorian Premier could save a lot of hospital beds & lives...
WHO / UK Health were 'Warned' to prescribe isolation after Vax as far back as Feb.
Both organisations & Israel said it would promote Vax hesitancy....so we live with Mass Vax Spikes.

Unnecessary ongoing suffering & death is preventable...but Media luv it...so we're up against it!
Experts could ....could wot tbb! Well, you know...pretend not to notice a little less often...

Best Wishes Vic...the unvaxed are no longer yer problem...that's some welcome respite!

A long article from 2016 about the culture at moderna . They certainly have come along way for a company that has one product and have been able to attract investors well before covid . https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/

AZD7442 request for Emergency Use Authorization for COVID-19 prophylaxis filed in US. Filing includes data from PROVENT Phase III trial showing 77% reduction in risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 with long-acting antibody combination (non-vaccine)

Potential to provide protection for those not expected to mount an adequate immune response following vaccination https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/astraz/media-centre/press-releases/2...

Funny stuff here. Princess snowflake Sam Frost…crybaby and selfish antivax idiot thinking it’s all about her. When influencers fight, ya just know someone is ganna get butt hurt. Lol.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/abbie-chatfield-roa...

tbb I cannot find anything in your links to support your claims.

Supafreak wrote:

A long article from 2016 about the culture at moderna . They certainly have come along way for a company that has one product and have been able to attract investors well before covid . https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-biotech-mrna/

Great read Supafreak. Thx for posting that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-b...

blindboy wrote:

tbb I cannot find anything in your links to support your claims.

I can’t find anything in his posts that makes sense. :(

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809?fbclid=IwAR1iADv7Wn5EkA8obA0WnV...

Roadkill wrote:

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809?fbclid=IwAR1iADv7Wn5EkA8obA0WnV...

I wouldn’t take much notice of this BBC hit piece on ivermectin . “The largest and highest quality ivermectin study published so far is the Together trial at the McMaster University in Canada. It found no benefit for the drug when it comes to Covid. “ Don’t think this study has been peer reviewed yet ( certainly taking their time ) and reports from this trial had mortality reduction at 18% which isn’t as high as other studies. You need to look at the full picture of how trial was run . To say 18% mortality reduction shows no effect is laughable . The ivermectin wars continue. More trial results to come.

supafreak, it is not a BBC hit job it is a report of a detailed review of the existing research conducted by UNSW. Like every other review it found all the studies showing a significant benefit had serious flaws and many had evidence of fabricated data. To accept your view involves believing in some vast international conspiracy to suppress the truth. I don't believe it. Conspiracies need communication and we have hundreds of thousands of investigative journalists out there working for the MSM who would kill for a story like that.....but....nothing.

The UNSW process is a form of peer review in the sense that people not involved in the original study go through the data and procedures carefully. And you need to provide a link to the 18% reduction in deaths study as I cannot find any mention of it.

Ok blindboy if you say so , I will ignore the thousands of doctors and personal testimonies advocating for ivermectin, I will also ignore the countries using it . I will put
all my faith in the TNI . Those doctors who have saved thousands of patients in the US are full of shit . Like you say blindboy “ Like every other review it found all the studies showing a significant benefit had serious flaws and many had evidence of fabricated data. “ Yet trials by Monash , NIH and Prnciple are still going ahead . With all the flawed trials and fake data and no signal they are still going ahead . Now that is strange . Yet with 1 trial from Merck involving 750 patients the US and Australia have already placed orders even though india has stopped its trials as there was no significant benefit . I’m not the one shouting conspiracy, but so many are . https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02783-1

blindboy wrote:

The UNSW process is a form of peer review in the sense that people not involved in the original study go through the data and procedures carefully. And you need to provide a link to the 18% reduction in deaths study as I cannot find any mention of it.

Look up the study

ahh yes...welcome to the current minefield state of affairs in "scientific" and academic "research" and publishing...

These last few posts this morning highlight much of what I said in my previous longer post a few pages back, and some other points are worth making.

Not only is it close to impossible for the overwhelming majority of people to discern reputable journals with proper peer review from non-reputable journals, but:

1. Most research articles are released to the public as preprints (on the authors' websites or on dedicated preprint websites such as https://arxiv.org/ or https://www.ssrn.com/) well before the articles are even submitted to a journal, let alone have gone through any peer review process at all.

So even before a paper gets submitted and makes it through the peer review process, governments, the media and people start "happily" referencing and quoting the articles as though all is well...

This complete nonsense has to stop.

2. It is even challenging for experts in a given field to understand, assess and analyse the experimental design and research methodology of an new article in their field, in order to determine if the design and methodology are valid or contain flaws, and hence if the conclusions and claims of the article are valid and can be trusted.

Actually, a significant number of articles don't provide enough information and details about their design and methodology, or provide the datasets they used, in order to actually make such an assessment.

So again, people, governments and the media are just happily quoting and referencing articles whose validity, conclusions and claims they actually have absolutely no idea about, cannot actually assess for themselves, and in many cases it's not even possible to make such an assessment.

Again, this absolute complete nonsense has to stop asap.

As a result of this, all that's happening is people are just stumbling across "scholarly, scientific research" articles that confirm and support their pre-held views and opinions about a topic, and just "spamming them to the outside world" completely ignorant to the validity of the articles they're quoting and referencing.

It's all a complete mess, and covid is an absolutely prefect reflection of it.

Supafreak wrote:

Ok blindboy if you say so , I will ignore the thousands of doctors and personal testimonies advocating for ivermectin, I will also ignore the countries using it . I will put
all my faith in the TNI . Those doctors who have saved thousands of patients in the US are full of shit . Like you say blindboy “ Like every other review it found all the studies showing a significant benefit had serious flaws and many had evidence of fabricated data. “ Yet trials by Monash , NIH and Prnciple are still going ahead . With all the flawed trials and fake data and no signal they are still going ahead . Now that is strange . Yet with 1 trial from Merck involving 750 patients the US and Australia have already placed orders even though india has stopped its trials as there was no significant benefit . I’m not the one shouting conspiracy, but so many are . https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02783-1

Personal testimonies = anecdotal evidence = zero proof / worthless.

Trying to stop posting on SN for a while but having trouble managing it . Must be addictive .

Some ridiculous comments from Tony Abbott I thought should be highlighted .

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has blasted Australia's 'oppressive' lockdown strategies and the 'Covid zero' fixation he claims amounted to a failure of 'national character'.

Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister's claim that Covid restrictions saved the lives of 30,000 meant we'd spent $10million per life preserved when most fatalities were 'very old and ... already sick'.

While Abbott admitted state leaders' Covid responses came from an 'ethical concern for the preciousness of life' ultimately they were 'overzealous' and 'ruined lives'.

'It often seemed an over-reaction from people who'd forgotten the inevitability of death and the importance of living each day to the full,' he wrote in The Australian."

Mr Abbott said a government's duty was to 'minimise' suffering not some 'vain quest to abolish it'.

One of his main points was the high expense paid for losing 'freedoms' - not gain them.

Mr Abbott claimed '$350billion (about 20 per cent of annual GDP)' was spent on paying people 'not to work' and to keep businesses closed."

He also claimed contradictions in how Australia managed the threat of Covid were so bad that reminded him of a famously deranged claim made by an American officer during the Vietnam war.

'So we've protected lives and ruined them at the same time; a bit like the Vietnam-era American officer who declared the village had to be destroyed in order to be saved,' Abbott said.

The 'worst features' of states' pandemic responses, he said, were 'oppressive rules for which there's been no medical justification'.

He claimed these included 'routinely denying families the right to farewell loved ones in person', 'curfews and mask mandates outdoors'.

I am sure all Tony haters will agree that the guy just has no idea .

True gsco, but if I was still teaching I would use some of the ivermectin studies with my senior Biology students to practice identifying some of the common flaws. Have a look at the "matched" cohorts in this one.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012369220348984

supafreak, thanks for the Nature link. Not sure of the relevance to this discussion but the drug being researched has an interesting mode of action being a chain terminator for RNA.

.

The curse of thick fingers.

supafreak, thanks for the Nature link. Not sure of the relevance to this discussion but the drug being researched has an interesting mode of action being a chain terminator for RNA.

Personal testimonies = anecdotal evidence = zero proof / worthless. Yes your right roadkill, uttah pradesh beat covid with masks and social distancing.

supafreak, please provide a link to the UNSW study as I cannot find it.

"While Abbott admitted state leaders' Covid responses came from an 'ethical concern for the preciousness of life' ultimately they were 'overzealous' and 'ruined lives'.

'It often seemed an over-reaction from people who'd forgotten the inevitability of death and the importance of living each day to the full,' he wrote in The Australian."

Hutchy,
The brazen hypocrisy and amorality of TA for all to see.
Here are his thoughts of Victorias VAD legislation:

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/tony-abbott-slams-victorias-as...

San G

I have no problem with anyone expressing views based on their religion . Margaret Court comes to mind .

Extreme views are another thing . Eg Infidels can be lied to and killed .

I also have no problem with you thinking that TA views are extreme .

Euthanasia is a difficult issue for me . I can see both points of view and think both sides have valid arguments .

I personally don't want to be a burden when very old or very sick . I have seen first hand the trauma of palliative care . I also have seen the amazing will to live in people that are very old and are a burden .

An issue , like so many , that the " devil is in the detail " and can be subject to abuse .

@blindboy , if Im reading this wrong then I apologise , I’m definitely not a science teacher. I don’t believe this has yet been peer reviewed. risk of death, 18.0% lower, RR 0.82, p = 0.54, treatment 18 of 677 (2.7%), control 22 of 678 (3.2%). https://c19ivermectin.com/togetherivm.html

"“People who are gravely ill should have their pain relieved, not their lives ended,” Mr Abbott said."

The most difficult area of all for doctors treating the dying is when the difference between the dose needed for pain relief and a fatal dose drops to zero. So this is just blatant nonsense. I'm not really an Abbott hater. I have defended him against accusations of dishonesty in these forums, but he is one of those people, like some here, who having swallowed an ideology whole at an early age, and simply lack the intellectual flexibility to think outside that framework. The Pope says it is wrong ..... end of discussion....ignore all the evidence....it is wrong.
It strikes me as weird and disturbing that we now have a rabid catholic, whose views are just as narrow as Abbot's , as Premier of NSW and a PM who is a member of a totally irrational "Christian" sect. It woud be nice to have someone not bound to such narrow, minority views somewhere in the leadership mix.

Here’s the thing blindboy , there’s been alot of trials on ivermectin and yes some have been flawed but that doesn’t mean they are all flawed . WASHINGTON, D.C. - Peer reviewed by medical experts that included three U.S. government senior scientists and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the research is the most comprehensive review of the available data taken from clinical, in vitro, animal, and real-world studies. Two of these senior scientists were from the FDA the third was from a division in the military . https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/666564

supafreak, the original study is not there. The link addresses its shortcomings. The main problem was that the mix of variants was not controlled. The control group was found to contain a smaller proportion of the more virulent Gamma variant than the group receiving ivermectin. This makes any comparison of mortality invalid. There is also a further serious issue in that it is a very small study and the numerical difference in the mortality was 4 individuals which, even had the rest of the study been valid, is at best very weak evidence for an effect. I appreciate just how difficult to assess the validity of scientific publications with no background in the area but I think that should make you very cautious about the conclusions you draw from your reading. It is great to be interested enough to look for the evidence but you really need to do a bit more study if you want to get the benefit of those efforts.

supafreak, no more please today. There is a bottomless pit of bullshit published on this issue and I have spent enough time for today wallowing in it. In regards to the eureka link: if you try to follow the link to the actual paper, it is not there. I am not going to chase down the evidence for this but, given the large number of papers that have been withdrawn after peer analysis of their data, I believe this paper was one of them. Scientists do not withdraw papers lightly. They only do so when the mistakes they contain cannot be justified and would lead to serious reputational damage.

...and there's a hint for you. Always check the links, the truth is often beneath the surface.

Yes blindboy there had been a lot of criticism about the together trial and how it was conducted . A big criticism was enrolling patients that had been infected for over 14 days before being treated with ivermectin and on a empty stomach . Like I said , I don’t think this study has been peer reviewed and officially released yet . Every doctor that treats covid patients with ivermectin treats early as possible and use a cocktail of drugs depending on the stage the patient has reached. Old video from first wave in US https://www.bitchute.com/video/rvccR4Tg6fRS/

Let it go mate. You are so deep.into confirmation bias you only see what you want to see. The whole issue is rapidly becoming history anyway. The vast majority of researchers and approval authorities have rejected it. In a short time more truly effective treatments will be approved. In Australia we have effectively smashed vaccine hesitancy and are looking at 90% double dosed by the start of 2022. Why chase an issue rapidly heading to total irrelevance with such dedication?

Superfreak, just curious on why you've honed in to Ivermectin? Seems 90% of your posts on Swellnet have been about it.

thermalben wrote:

Superfreak, just curious on why you've honed in to Ivermectin? Seems 90% of your posts on Swellnet have been about it.

@malben , because Professor Thomas Borody showed that covid was a easily treatable disease yet the government and its agencies ignored it and the only focus from the start has been vaccines . The government needs to be held accountable for its handling of the pandemic. To not even entertain the idea that a treatment was possible to me is unbelievable . Australian innovation ignored again, for what reason I have no idea . To not even try Borody’s triple therapy on the aged when they were dying by the hundreds in Victoria needs investigating . What was the reason for that ? They give ivermectin in aged care to treat scabies yet refused to do a 5 day treatment instead doing nothing . Some were simply locked in their rooms until so sick they were hospitalised then died . Doing nothing was the protocol for early treatment in the western world . If people want to say it’s dangerous then why is it given by the US government to refugee immigrants into the US ? And 20 associated known deaths in 4 billion doses doesn’t seem highly dangerous. I’m honed in because I know bullshit when I see it . How different would everything be if the government had spent 20 million on a trial in the beginning ? Vaccines would still have been needed , ivermectin was another tool against the pandemic , now new drugs for early treatment, that are experimental , are about to hit the market and governments are ok with that . The doctor patient relationship has been killed by government both here and the US , now that’s dangerous.

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Trying to stop posting on SN for a while but having trouble managing it . Must be addictive .

Some ridiculous comments from Tony Abbott I thought should be highlighted .

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has blasted Australia's 'oppressive' lockdown strategies and the 'Covid zero' fixation he claims amounted to a failure of 'national character'.

Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister's claim that Covid restrictions saved the lives of 30,000 meant we'd spent $10million per life preserved when most fatalities were 'very old and ... already sick'.

While Abbott admitted state leaders' Covid responses came from an 'ethical concern for the preciousness of life' ultimately they were 'overzealous' and 'ruined lives'.

'It often seemed an over-reaction from people who'd forgotten the inevitability of death and the importance of living each day to the full,' he wrote in The Australian."

Mr Abbott said a government's duty was to 'minimise' suffering not some 'vain quest to abolish it'.

One of his main points was the high expense paid for losing 'freedoms' - not gain them.

Mr Abbott claimed '$350billion (about 20 per cent of annual GDP)' was spent on paying people 'not to work' and to keep businesses closed."

He also claimed contradictions in how Australia managed the threat of Covid were so bad that reminded him of a famously deranged claim made by an American officer during the Vietnam war.

'So we've protected lives and ruined them at the same time; a bit like the Vietnam-era American officer who declared the village had to be destroyed in order to be saved,' Abbott said.

The 'worst features' of states' pandemic responses, he said, were 'oppressive rules for which there's been no medical justification'.

He claimed these included 'routinely denying families the right to farewell loved ones in person', 'curfews and mask mandates outdoors'.

I am sure all Tony haters will agree that the guy just has no idea .

I think there’s truth in what he says Hutch.
What are your problems with it? Makes sense to me and I’m not a Tony fan.

Sorry Alana .

I also agree with it but was being silly in not trying to get into a discussion as most on this site would want to argue just because Abbott said it .

Trying to not post much .

blindboy wrote:

Let it go mate. You are so deep.into confirmation bias you only see what you want to see. The whole issue is rapidly becoming history anyway. The vast majority of researchers and approval authorities have rejected it. In a short time more truly effective treatments will be approved. In Australia we have effectively smashed vaccine hesitancy and are looking at 90% double dosed by the start of 2022. Why chase an issue rapidly heading to total irrelevance with such dedication?

Thats where your wrong blindboy many countries have adopted ivermectin , do you think big pharma is going to give their new treatments for free or share the formula ? You believe the vast majority of researchers have rejected it yet I will repeat that Monash university , NIH and Oxford university are still doing trials. Do you rate these institutions or just see what you want to see ? https://ivmstatus.com/

Supafreak wrote:

blindboy wrote:

Let it go mate. You are so deep.into confirmation bias you only see what you want to see. The whole issue is rapidly becoming history anyway. The vast majority of researchers and approval authorities have rejected it. In a short time more truly effective treatments will be approved. In Australia we have effectively smashed vaccine hesitancy and are looking at 90% double dosed by the start of 2022. Why chase an issue rapidly heading to total irrelevance with such dedication?

Thats where your wrong blindboy many countries have adopted ivermectin , do you think big pharma is going to give their new treatments for free or share the formula ? You believe the vast majority of researchers have rejected it yet I will repeat that Monash university , NIH and Oxford university are still doing trials. Do you rate these institutions or just see what you want to see ? https://ivmstatus.com/

AstraZeneca was given it away for zero profit…just saying.

I think NSW will be upping the deaths from Covid in the next few months. Dominic Perrottet seems hell bent on opening up…I think he should have taken a more careful planned approach. Still, publicly unelected leader I can do anything syndrome.
Crazy stuff imo.

They are doing trials because of the poor quality of the existing data and the prevalence of the gross distortions of it being used as evidence of its effectiveness, when none exists. So far, over a considerable period of time, and with great patience I have addressed every claim you have posted and pointed out why everyone of them, including Borody's work, misrepresents the evidence.

At this point I have to conclude that for reasons beyond my understanding you think you are doing everyone a favour by drawing attention to an effective treatment and want to have the word "ivermectin" constantly on the front page in a favourable context. Maybe you should consider that your approach has already caused numerous deaths. People tricked into believing ivermectin is effective are leaving it too late to get to hospital and dying as a result. There is a vast difference between a medicine that is approved and available in the correct formulation and dosage and a medicine picked up from a vet or an unregistered supplier on the internet. If I was as cynical as you I might even think you are involved somehow and stand to make a profit. We are in Australia. You are encouraging people to take an unproven drug with known side effects in no particular dosage in a manner likely to cause them to avoid medical treatment at the cost of their lives. Maybe time to think about responsible behaviour.

“AstraZeneca was given it away for zero profit…just saying “They made small profit, it doesn’t cost $4 per dose to make, have they shared freely their formula with poorer nations ? Are they going to freely share there new treatment ? Just saying

Supafreak wrote:

“AstraZeneca was given it away for zero profit…just saying “They made small profit, it doesn’t cost $4 per dose to make, have they shared freely their formula with poorer nations ? Are they going to freely share there new treatment ? Just saying

AZ was sold at cost.

You make a bs statement....it gets corrected..you double down on the bs.

Just accept you posted an incorrect statement and move on.

South Africa’s government found itself on the defensive this week after a senior health official revealed that 1.5 million doses of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine just purchased for use among health workers would cost $5.25 (£3.84; €4.32) a dose, more than twice what the European Union is paying at $2.15. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have committed to not making a profit from the pandemic, while Moderna and Pfizer did not. AstraZeneca reserved the right, however, to declare the pandemic phase over and take profits from later vaccine sales. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281 Just saying

Supafreak wrote:

South Africa’s government found itself on the defensive this week after a senior health official revealed that 1.5 million doses of the Oxford and AstraZeneca vaccine just purchased for use among health workers would cost $5.25 (£3.84; €4.32) a dose, more than twice what the European Union is paying at $2.15. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have committed to not making a profit from the pandemic, while Moderna and Pfizer did not. AstraZeneca reserved the right, however, to declare the pandemic phase over and take profits from later vaccine sales. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281 Just saying

Still irrelevant to what you posted. No big deal. Commercial decisions from commercial entities will always change going forward.

Supafreak, I've got no qualifications in medical science. So, I take my cues from trusted sources who strongly advocate peer-review processes, amongst many others.

Prof. Peter Doherty - an Australian immunologist and Nobel laureate - spends a lot of time answering questions (and debunking myths) via his Twitter account. I highly recommend following his account: https://twitter.com/profpcdoherty

The Prof has written a few things on Ivermectin in the past, linking to ongoing trials etc, but just a few weeks ago provided this link.

For the Ivermectin enthusiasts, here's what the Merck Company that made this drug and gave it free for the treatment of river blindness in Africa say about its use for therapy in COVID-19. https://t.co/Zj4JBrohu0

— Prof. Peter Doherty (@ProfPCDoherty) August 27, 2021

The Merck website states:

"It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:

- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-...

To clarify - Merck is a pharmaceutical company that manufactures ivermectin. Indeed, since 1987 Merck has "established the Mectizan (ivermectin) donation program. This program is considered an exemplar among drug donation arrangements. Three hundred million people have been treated with ivermectin, donated by Merck in more than 30 countries. Merck’s motto for its donation program is to provide ivermectin "as much as needed, for as long as needed". So, ivermectin has proven human uses, but Covid-19 is not one of them. And, the company that manufactures ivermectin, Merck, has explicitly stated this."
(source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/08/29/ivermectin-a-40-year...)

I don't possess the knowledge or skills to call bullshit on this kinda stuff. I don't think many people do, actually.

blindboy wrote:

supafreak, no more please today. There is a bottomless pit of bullshit published on this issue and I have spent enough time for today wallowing in it. In regards to the eureka link: if you try to follow the link to the actual paper, it is not there. I am not going to chase down the evidence for this but, given the large number of papers that have been withdrawn after peer analysis of their data, I believe this paper was one of them. Scientists do not withdraw papers lightly. They only do so when the mistakes they contain cannot be justified and would lead to serious reputational damage.

...and there's a hint for you. Always check the links, the truth is often beneath the surface.

Yeah I find you a odd fellow blindboy, you say you’re a science teacher and researcher yet you can’t seem to find your way around the internet, the article is there you just need to click on it , if it comes up empty simply do the search on that same page , it’s really pretty basic. Anyway enjoy your day and hope ya get some waves , its crap up here .

Seriously supafreak, just stop it. You still pushing Ivermectin, even after the drug's maker says don't use it to treat Covid, is next level pathetic.

Alana_a wrote:

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Trying to stop posting on SN for a while but having trouble managing it . Must be addictive .

Some ridiculous comments from Tony Abbott I thought should be highlighted .

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott has blasted Australia's 'oppressive' lockdown strategies and the 'Covid zero' fixation he claims amounted to a failure of 'national character'.

Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister's claim that Covid restrictions saved the lives of 30,000 meant we'd spent $10million per life preserved when most fatalities were 'very old and ... already sick'.

While Abbott admitted state leaders' Covid responses came from an 'ethical concern for the preciousness of life' ultimately they were 'overzealous' and 'ruined lives'.

'It often seemed an over-reaction from people who'd forgotten the inevitability of death and the importance of living each day to the full,' he wrote in The Australian."

Mr Abbott said a government's duty was to 'minimise' suffering not some 'vain quest to abolish it'.

One of his main points was the high expense paid for losing 'freedoms' - not gain them.

Mr Abbott claimed '$350billion (about 20 per cent of annual GDP)' was spent on paying people 'not to work' and to keep businesses closed."

He also claimed contradictions in how Australia managed the threat of Covid were so bad that reminded him of a famously deranged claim made by an American officer during the Vietnam war.

'So we've protected lives and ruined them at the same time; a bit like the Vietnam-era American officer who declared the village had to be destroyed in order to be saved,' Abbott said.

The 'worst features' of states' pandemic responses, he said, were 'oppressive rules for which there's been no medical justification'.

He claimed these included 'routinely denying families the right to farewell loved ones in person', 'curfews and mask mandates outdoors'.

I am sure all Tony haters will agree that the guy just has no idea .

I think there’s truth in what he says Hutch.
What are your problems with it? Makes sense to me and I’m not a Tony fan.

What's Tony up to? Corona. China. Deep reflections on our domestic and geopolitical woes.

Sounding so statesmanlike. Spying a Senate spot? Soon to have a sluggoe sporting surfing Senator?

Some sage soundings on the Sino situation from Slugger:

Tony Abbott lauds Xi Jinping’s ‘commitment to fully democratic China’

“I have never heard a Chinese leader commit so explicitly to a rule-based international order founded on the principle that we should all treat others as we would be treated ourselves,” he said. “I thank you, Mr President, for this historic, historic statement which I hope will echo right around the world.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/17/tony-abbott-xi-jinping-chi...

Seriously vic local , Merck has a reason . Can you show the trials Merck did in ivermectin for treatment of covid ? No you can’t because they never did any , just a press statement which you gobbled up .