covid vaccine

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
You're misinformed ibd. And you exaggerate continually. For example you said that "i will believe any bs random number that someone feeds you". You say stuff like that and then claim you are a college professor. What college?

BTW, the covid moderna isn't a live vaccine.
Also, you can get covid and not know you are sick and still spread it around.

What they don't understand is that this might be a year round situation rather than a seasonal one like influenza. And with the flu, many people get vaccinated every year. With Covid 19 and its variants, it's more severe and can strain healthcare resources.
I've read where some hospitals are turning away covid patients simply because they don't have beds to put them in. A vaccination is less expensive than building more hospitals.

They need more than two beds.

As much as some people might not like it, this might be where 2 people to a room works. They could just isolate both patients with a floor to ceiling partition. Basically quarantine 2 patients with a central door to their respective spaces.

It's just that a lot of hospitals spent money on converting 2 patient rooms into 1 patient rooms. That decreased the number of beds per hospital unless additions to the hospital were built. It would've been easy enough to have sliding panels or folding panels that could isolate one patient from another.
This is where luxury came first while increasing the cost of healthcare. One of the reasons why it's so expensive in the US.

Shi entered the international limelight on Jan. 23, 2020, the same day Chinese authorities sealed off Wuhan to contain a new disease. In a preprint paper, her team announced that they had found a virus 96.2 percent identical to the novel coronavirus.

Seven years into her search, Shi discovered in 2011 a close relative to SARS in a cave in subtropical Yunnan province. Her team's paper, published in 2013, launched her to national prominence, and she gained the nickname "Bat Woman."

James___ wrote:
This story gets into the history of China's P4 lab in Wuhan. https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-wuhan-lab-french-engineering-095320117.html And they say that with SARS, Chinese virologists went looking for its source and they found it. And that they also found the coronavirus as well.

Shi entered the international limelight on Jan. 23, 2020, the same day Chinese authorities sealed off Wuhan to contain a new disease. In a preprint paper, her team announced that they had found a virus 96.2 percent identical to the novel coronavirus.

The 3.8% difference could be mutations that allows it to infect people among other things. I'm not sure if the virus they found was most likely from the same cave or if it was that type of bat.

Seven years into her search, Shi discovered in 2011 a close relative to SARS in a cave in subtropical Yunnan province. Her team's paper, published in 2013, launched her to national prominence, and she gained the nickname "Bat Woman."

What's questionable is knowing China's willingness to not protect people or the environment. Does this same laissez-faire attitude extend to virology and the research associated with it?

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:
This story gets into the history of China's P4 lab in Wuhan. https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-wuhan-lab-french-engineering-095320117.html And they say that with SARS, Chinese virologists went looking for its source and they found it. And that they also found the coronavirus as well.

Shi entered the international limelight on Jan. 23, 2020, the same day Chinese authorities sealed off Wuhan to contain a new disease. In a preprint paper, her team announced that they had found a virus 96.2 percent identical to the novel coronavirus.

The 3.8% difference could be mutations that allows it to infect people among other things. I'm not sure if the virus they found was most likely from the same cave or if it was that type of bat.

Seven years into her search, Shi discovered in 2011 a close relative to SARS in a cave in subtropical Yunnan province. Her team's paper, published in 2013, launched her to national prominence, and she gained the nickname "Bat Woman."

What's questionable is knowing China's willingness to not protect people or the environment. Does this same laissez-faire attitude extend to virology and the research associated with it?

Did you know the mRNA vaccine you got in you arm, was develop so quickly, because the Chinese uploaded the 'sequencing' for the dominant strain the devastated Wuhan, to an open-source website? That's right, America, the drug companies, didn't do their own sequencing, on the strains infecting people domestically. The Chinese sequence, was already outdated, before the uploaded it. It was pure luck, that it's been some what effective against the following variants.

James___ wrote:
I'd like to give you an easy out on this Harvey but language is what it is. I started learning
Norwegian and Engleske at the same time. Which one is the right way? They are both Germanic languages. They are variants of what is possibly known as the Germanic Hoards who ancient Rome didn't control.
It's said that the Germanic Hoard conquered Rome and destroyed its aqueducts. History is so much fun.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James___ wrote:
I'd like to give you an easy out on this Harvey but language is what it is. I started learning
Norwegian and Engleske at the same time. Which one is the right way? They are both Germanic languages. They are variants of what is possibly known as the Germanic Hoards who ancient Rome didn't control.
It's said that the Germanic Hoard conquered Rome and destroyed its aqueducts. History is so much fun.

You are obviously not quite as smart, as you want to impress, not communicate. Communication is the language you, and your audience both understand, and use. You do realize that most people won't bother to google-translate, so why do you bother? Anybody can do it, it's free, and nobody cares. Links to videos, with no description, also get ignored. Google keeps track of your interests, and tries to conform. I don't won't them to suggest everything barely legal teens... Or a bunch of insane crap, I have no use or interest.

HarveyH55 wrote:

You are obviously not quite as smart, as you want to impress, not communicate. Communication is the language you, and your audience both understand, and use. You do realize that most people won't bother to google-translate, so why do you bother? Anybody can do it, it's free, and nobody cares. Links to videos, with no description, also get ignored. Google keeps track of your interests, and tries to conform. I don't won't them to suggest everything barely legal teens... Or a bunch of insane crap, I have no use or interest.

James___ wrote:
It helps to have a hospital. When my brother had typhoid fever and had to be quarantined, nurses gave him shots every 4 hours. That also helped to prevent him from infecting other people.

duncan61 wrote:
I have waited till Australia made its own AstraZeneca. 50 million doses will be manufactured in Australia by multinational biopharmaceutical company CSL, in partnership with the developer, international pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.This local stuff hit the shelves a fortnight ago and is suitable for over 60s.I did some research on getting jabbed and it was all to hard however the next day I was in a shopping centre and the billboard said get vaccinated here so I did it on the spot.No pain at first but that night I had mild flu symptoms which had gone by morning.

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have waited till Australia made its own AstraZeneca. 50 million doses will be manufactured in Australia by multinational biopharmaceutical company CSL, in partnership with the developer, international pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.This local stuff hit the shelves a fortnight ago and is suitable for over 60s.I did some research on getting jabbed and it was all to hard however the next day I was in a shopping centre and the billboard said get vaccinated here so I did it on the spot.No pain at first but that night I had mild flu symptoms which had gone by morning.

So you submitted to the mobocracy by AstraZeneca, eh?

Did it make you suspicious at all that AstraZeneca is British, and that they made a special deal with your government, which is being tyrannical, and which is MAKING MONEY off of this special deal?

duncan61 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I have waited till Australia made its own AstraZeneca. 50 million doses will be manufactured in Australia by multinational biopharmaceutical company CSL, in partnership with the developer, international pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca.This local stuff hit the shelves a fortnight ago and is suitable for over 60s.I did some research on getting jabbed and it was all to hard however the next day I was in a shopping centre and the billboard said get vaccinated here so I did it on the spot.No pain at first but that night I had mild flu symptoms which had gone by morning.

So you submitted to the mobocracy by AstraZeneca, eh?

Did it make you suspicious at all that AstraZeneca is British, and that they made a special deal with your government, which is being tyrannical, and which is MAKING MONEY off of this special deal?

Not at all I am British from the house of Windsor and I hope we stitched the Aussie monkeys up good.My entire family that I live with are fully vaccinated .I did research and had some good advice from a nurse I met at the Casino and it started a whole debate in the smoking area.I did it because I could not through fear or government pressure and its all to easy.There is a good chance the second jab on 8/12/2021 will have no side effects.You can still get and spread the virus it just may not be so severe.We are keeping the rest of the world locked out till Easter next year so suck it.

duncan61 wrote:
Well no one has it here and we are keeping it that way

duncan61 wrote:
Well no one has it here and we are keeping it that way

HarveyH55 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Well no one has it here and we are keeping it that way

It's still probably lingering around. For most people, the symptoms are mild, like a cold. Many people are afraid to admit they might be infected with it. The symptoms are your immune response, so it could be a lot of other things, besides covid. Could be covid, and dismissed as an allergy, like to dust or pollen, which is pretty common. The pandemic will still go on for another year or two. Soon after you open the doors to the outside world, you start getting new cases. The vaccines aren't 100% effective for everyone. The antibodies created, don't last for ever. The US has been debating over booster shots, after 6-8 months from full vaccination (one, or two shots). This is kind of odd, since they had seem to be starting, with those at high-risk, then suddenly stopped, to discuss the need. There has been some talk of a new version of the vaccines, to better deal with variants. There has been talk of a combo covid and universal flu mRNA vaccine soon as well. Chemically, the mRNA vaccines are going to be substantially different, and the FDA requirement for trials shouldn't be as strict, as normal new drugs. Only the genetic instructions are being changed, which is new territory for drug approval. Think this is why all the debate. I tend to believe the booster shots went over kind of rough, and a high number of people had a bad time for a few days. Basically, the protection from the initial vaccination is starting to fade for many. A booster, is likely to be rough going for quite a few. Be a tough sell on all mRNA vaccines, after word starts getting around, specially if people die from it. A new version of the vaccine, might mitigate some of the negatives. Should get interesting in the next couple of months.

duncan61 wrote:Well no one has it here and we are keeping it that way

Into the Night wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Well no one has it here and we are keeping it that way

Then why is Australia locking down??????

Spongy Iris wrote:

keepit wrote:

BTW, the covid moderna isn't a live vaccine.
Also, you can get covid and not know you are sick and still spread it around.

I think the E Coli in the Pfizer vaccines is a live culture...

Spongy Iris wrote:
There really is almost nobody in Australia suffering from covid.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Comparing the statistics between USA and Australia as of today...

Australia

cases 90 thousand , 0.3 % of pop
deaths 1 thousand , 0.004% of pop

USA

cases 43 million, 13% of pop
deaths 697 thousand, 0.2% of pop

Spongy Iris wrote:
Of course ITN will point out these are random numbers from Worldometer.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just about everybody who gets marked as a coronavirus death had other reasons to blame for their death too. And the number of cases is just people so worried or forced to take the test.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The statistics don't provide perfect knowledge, but they're not totally random.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They offer an indication of the intensity of viral spread in different areas all around the world.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There really is almost nobody in Australia suffering from covid.

Making up numbers is a fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Comparing the statistics between USA and Australia as of today...

Australia

cases 90 thousand , 0.3 % of pop
deaths 1 thousand , 0.004% of pop

USA

cases 43 million, 13% of pop
deaths 697 thousand, 0.2% of pop

The number of infections in any area is unknown. Covid19 does not kill.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Of course ITN will point out these are random numbers from Worldometer.

They are.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just about everybody who gets marked as a coronavirus death had other reasons to blame for their death too. And the number of cases is just people so worried or forced to take the test.

These random numbers are also being used to try to get people to get vaccinated AND wear masks for the rest of their lives, shut down their businesses, not conduct business, etc. The goal is to implement total welfare (communism).

Spongy Iris wrote:
The statistics don't provide perfect knowledge, but they're not totally random.

They are totally random number of type randU.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They offer an indication of the intensity of viral spread in different areas all around the world.

They do not. The number of people infected in any area is unknown. It cannot be measured.

Spongy Iris wrote:Another one of your nothing can be known arguments.

Spongy Iris wrote:Have you ever heard the phrase, There are no absolutes?

Spongy Iris wrote:But you only speak in absolutes!

IBdaMann wrote:

You have become indistinguishable from tmiddles. Should you be treated as such?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You have become indistinguishable from tmiddles. Should you be treated as such?

My point is about analyzing large datasets, and seeing trends. There is random noise. But there are also trends that are not random. You can't just say, because there is some randomness it must be totally random, unless you wish to be a moron.

James brought up earlier that areas with larger population densities tended to have more cases and deaths as a non random trend.

Another non random trend is Summer has less illness than Winter.

These trends show up in the data.

Spongy Iris wrote:My point is about analyzing large datasets, and seeing trends.

Spongy Iris wrote: There is random noise.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there are also trends that are not random.

Spongy Iris wrote: You can't just say, because there is some randomness it must be totally random, unless you wish to be a moron.

Spongy Iris wrote: James brought up earlier that areas with larger population densities tended to have more cases and deaths as a non random trend.

Spongy Iris wrote: Another non random trend is Summer has less illness than Winter.

Spongy Iris wrote:These trends show up in the data.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
There really is almost nobody in Australia suffering from covid.

Making up numbers is a fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Comparing the statistics between USA and Australia as of today...

Australia

cases 90 thousand , 0.3 % of pop
deaths 1 thousand , 0.004% of pop

USA

cases 43 million, 13% of pop
deaths 697 thousand, 0.2% of pop

The number of infections in any area is unknown. Covid19 does not kill.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Of course ITN will point out these are random numbers from Worldometer.

They are.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just about everybody who gets marked as a coronavirus death had other reasons to blame for their death too. And the number of cases is just people so worried or forced to take the test.

These random numbers are also being used to try to get people to get vaccinated AND wear masks for the rest of their lives, shut down their businesses, not conduct business, etc. The goal is to implement total welfare (communism).

Spongy Iris wrote:
The statistics don't provide perfect knowledge, but they're not totally random.

They are totally random number of type randU.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They offer an indication of the intensity of viral spread in different areas all around the world.

They do not. The number of people infected in any area is unknown. It cannot be measured.

Another one of your nothing can be known arguments.

Have you ever heard the phrase, There are no absolutes?

But you only speak in absolutes!

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You have become indistinguishable from tmiddles. Should you be treated as such?

My point is about analyzing large datasets, and seeing trends. There is random noise. But there are also trends that are not random. You can't just say, because there is some randomness it must be totally random, unless you wish to be a moron.

James brought up earlier that areas with larger population densities tended to have more cases and deaths as a non random trend.

Another non random trend is Summer has less illness than Winter.

These trends show up in the data.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

You have become indistinguishable from tmiddles. Should you be treated as such?

My point is about analyzing large datasets, and seeing trends. There is random noise. But there are also trends that are not random. You can't just say, because there is some randomness it must be totally random, unless you wish to be a moron.

James brought up earlier that areas with larger population densities tended to have more cases and deaths as a non random trend.

Another non random trend is Summer has less illness than Winter.

These trends show up in the data.

Random, doesn't imply evenly distributed either. Sometimes, it's just random... Actual trends with covid statistics are near impossible, with the limited dataset. Not to mention it's highly political, so reporting is biased. Then there is the small sample size available, amplified with the use of computer models and wishful thinking (it's working/were all going to die).

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:My point is about analyzing large datasets, and seeing trends.

Sure, but the only reason for discussing data is to determine what rational conclusions can be reached. In this regard, at some point you must specify the data being discussed so that others can perform analyses and arrive at conclusions so as to discuss them. You do not get to simply imply that certain unavailable data exists and that other people not present for whom you pretend to speak have already determined the conclusions that those who are present must accept for some reason.

If the pretense for the data is itself FALSE, i.e. no such valid dataset exists and the numbers are simply fabrications, then the claim itself is FALSE right out of the starting gate.

tmiddles never could get out of the starting gate.

Spongy Iris wrote: There is random noise.

... which is not a pattern.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there are also trends that are not random.

This is called a "claim." How do you intend to support this claim?

Spongy Iris wrote: You can't just say, because there is some randomness it must be totally random, unless you wish to be a moron.

You are incorrect. Any randomness makes the system random. You should focus on understanding this concept before you proceed further.

I notice your rookie blunder of trying to qualify a system as "not random" by calling it "not totally random." This is the root of your mistake. Any system that is RANDOM is completely RANDOM. It's a binary value, not shades of grey.

Any number multiplied by zero is zero.
Any system controlled by RANDOM to any degree is a RANDOM system.

If you draw a card randomly from a deck, you do not know which card you will get. If you get to choose arbitrarily from which of three decks you randomly choose a card, although you have total control over from which deck you will draw.

Yahtzee is a great example of a RANDOM "system" that nonetheless affords players a great deal of control. All die rolls are accompanied by arbitrary decisions. The players have full control over which die they decide to reroll and what score to fill. Full control. Arbitrary decisions. It's still a RANDOM game.

Spongy Iris wrote: James brought up earlier that areas with larger population densities tended to have more cases and deaths as a non random trend.

Rookie mistake #2. You just pointed to a random outcome, you described the happenchance distribution and then ... drumroll please ... bizarrely decided to mislabel all of it as a "trend."

Flip a coin 1,000 times, jot down the results and let me know what "trends" you believe you see. You'll come to a much better understanding very quickly.

Spongy Iris wrote: Another non random trend is Summer has less illness than Winter.

That does not make illness non-random or even less random somehow. You need to learn the meanings of the words you use. If you roll a 20-sided die, your odds of rolling a "3" are 1-in-20. If you then switch to a six-sided die, your odds of rolling a "3" are increased to 1-in-6 and it's just as random as when you rolled your 20-sided die.

If you roll five six-sided die and add the result, you have a better chance of rolling a higher sum than if you only roll three die. Both are nonetheless RANDOM and neither is somehow "less" RANDOM than the other.

Spongy Iris wrote:These trends show up in the data.

You don't have any "The Data."

When players begin a game of Scrabble, they first agree on a dictionary as the "referee" for words. When people discuss conclusions from data, they agree on specific data as the "referee" for their conclusions.

Until you lay out all of "The Data" in its entirety for everyone to pore over, to scrutinize and to analyze, you have no argument. You become tmiddles, stuck at the starting gate.

I hope this helps. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

IBdaMann wrote:
At some point you must specify the data being discussed so that others can perform analyses and arrive at conclusions so as to discuss them.

IBdaMann wrote:
You are incorrect. Any randomness makes the system random. You should focus on understanding this concept before you proceed further.

I notice your rookie blunder of trying to qualify a system as "not random" by calling it "not totally random." This is the root of your mistake. Any system that is RANDOM is completely RANDOM. It's a binary value, not shades of grey.

IBdaMann wrote:
Rookie mistake #2. You just pointed to a random outcome, you described the happenchance distribution and then ... drumroll please ... bizarrely decided to mislabel all of it as a "trend."

Flip a coin 1,000 times, jot down the results and let me know what "trends" you believe you see. You'll come to a much better understanding very quickly.


That does not make illness non-random or even less random somehow. You need to learn the meanings of the words you use. If you roll a 20-sided die, your odds of rolling a "3" are 1-in-20. If you then switch to a six-sided die, your odds of rolling a "3" are increased to 1-in-6 and it's just as random as when you rolled your 20-sided die.

If you roll five six-sided die and add the result, you have a better chance of rolling a higher sum than if you only roll three die. Both are nonetheless RANDOM and neither is somehow "less" RANDOM than the other.

Spongy Iris wrote:Worldometer. Cases and deaths of corona virus.

Spongy Iris wrote:San Francisco county reports coronavirus deaths equal to approx 0.07% of its population.

Spongy Iris wrote: Los Angeles county reports corona virus deaths of approx. 0.68% of its population.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Rookie mistake #2. You just pointed to a random outcome, you described the happenchance distribution and then ... drumroll please ... bizarrely decided to mislabel all of it as a "trend."

Flip a coin 1,000 times, jot down the results and let me know what "trends" you believe you see. You'll come to a much better understanding very quickly.

Rolling a die is random. But It is not random that the odds of rolling a 3 on 6 sided die are greater than on a 20 sided die.

keepit wrote:You're misinformed ibd.

keepit wrote: For example you said that "i will believe any bs random number that someone feeds you".

keepit wrote: You say stuff like that and then claim you are a college professor.

keepit wrote: BTW, the covid moderna isn't a live vaccine.

keepit wrote:Also, you can get covid and not know you are sick and still spread it around.