Corona virus

boobook

Well-Known Member
I read that and to be honest, have no idea what its key points are. It's all over the place as I read it. I didn't understand what it was saying.

It seemed to be a waste of my time reading it to me.

What are the interesting bits and points?
 
Last edited:

discomatt

Well-Known Member
That contract tracing and testing like our government has been doing is possibly the wrong approach along with total shut downs are also the wrong approach as we need to look closer at super spreading events rather than blanket closures.
Some of the links in the article I also found informative and interesting.
Sorry to waste your time
 

boobook

Well-Known Member
Sorry to waste your time

Well to be honest there isn't a lot else to do these days in Lockdown. I'm not keen to spend $5000 to go down Zeka Spur track or attempt Grimme track.

But if you read down the bottom the article also criticises Sweden's approach. So it seems to be taking a bet both ways.

:confused:
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Some will find this interesting, some will find it as predicted facts coming true and scary, some will try and debunk a well respected doctor, some may even see it as a waste of their time, oh to be soooo busy....
I find it to be concerning but at last my thoughts and predictions from months ago are starting to be seen as what they are, ah some validation and relief that I am not nuts.
 

boobook

Well-Known Member
Some will find this interesting, some will find it as predicted facts coming true and scary, some will try and debunk a well respected doctor, some may even see it as a waste of their time, oh to be soooo busy....
I find it to be concerning but at last my thoughts and predictions from months ago are starting to be seen as what they are, ah some validation and relief that I am not nuts.


Checked this 'well respected' doctor out in about 3 mins.

The FDA ordered Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site. The claims to which the FDA objected involved three products.

He is even outed on Quackwatch. An interesting website in its self.

Lots of medical journal and medical society opinions like this. Not saying he is wrong, I can't be bothered reading what he says but he is obviously not universally well regarded by any stretch of the imagination, in fact the opposite, even in the eyes of the FDA. Basically he has a record of exaggerating issues so he can sell his books and products. Nothing new here.

Not surprisingly, the medical establishment sees things differently. Some researchers and doctors say that Mercola steers patients away from proven treatments and peddles pseudoscientific misinformation on topics such as flu shots and fluoridation. In their view, he is resurrecting old myths, such as the threat posed by mercury in dental fillings, and promoting new ones, such as the notion that microwave ovens emit harmful radiation. “The information he’s putting out to the public is extremely misleading and potentially very dangerous,” opines Dr. Stephen Barrett, who runs the medical watchdog site Quackwatch.org. “He exaggerates the risks and potential dangers of legitimate science-based medical care, and he promotes a lot of unsubstantiated ideas and sells [certain] products with claims that are misleading.”

You can get and quote any opinion you want on the internet. Including 'leaders are really lizards in suits' apparently.

But these people don't even stand up to superficial scrutiny. Especially when their agenda is to sell their own books and other unproven healing products. Some may be valid but to see if that is true takes more than an internet website repost.
 
Last edited:

discomatt

Well-Known Member
And yet when you dig deeper , as I did , many things he puts out there from his studies actually change laws and guide lines down the track, sometimes even 10 years later.
So you disagree with the links and actual numbers put out by the UK government as well which he has in his article that back up his point of view?
How do you feel about the small part of the article that touches on the redistribution of wealth?
Oh thats right you didn't read it and think critically about it, exactly what I would have expected, we humans can be very predicable
 

boobook

Well-Known Member
Matt, I have learned the hard way not to bother reading those posts. They are just fiction, from the same anti vax, covid denier Charlatan's over and over.

You may believe that stuff, but it's just wacko self serving junk to me. Please do a little background research on the people you are quoting. They have a pretty shoddy reputation.
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Nowhere does he say it is a hoax, he is discussing the most appropriate way to deal with it, the lock downs and the side effects and implications of the lock downs all from looking at the facts of what HAS happened around the world and how different governments have reacted.
 

boobook

Well-Known Member
I didn't mean to imply he was saying it's a hoax, as I said I wouldn't bother reading his stuff based on his history and reputation. I was talking more generally, I recall the website quoted that also talked about world leaders being Lizards in suits, and covid 19 is caused by the devil's sperm. Sites like that.
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Just because there is some obvious BS on a website does not automatically put every article or piece of information on said website into the BS category.
May people around the world follow a religion but do not take every aspect of it's teaching or bible as literal advice, if they did christians would cut the hands off thieves and put many to death for various reasons. They instead take bits that are relevant to their lives and how they want to live
As far as many of the drug pedaling doctors who get paid millions from drug companies who dispute his findings and opinions you can make your own mind up about that.
Personally I would take the advice from a holistic doctor who has studied modern medicine and moved away from drugs to a more natural treatment because after all the treatments humans have used for millions of years are now alternative and the main stream accepted medicines are new and worth billions to a select few.
Each to their own
 

mikehzz

Well-Known Member
It's not as simple as it seems. The Swedes have a peculiar mentality that means they don't need to be locked down by the government. They lock themselves down by following the government guidlines. Different cultures have different characteristics, easily seen by driving in different countries where the road rules are essentially the same. Sweden is very orderly and correct, Italy is a mad house. Governments react to the tendencies of the population much like parents mould discipline to suit the personality of their children. You can leave some teenagers to look after the house for the weekend, others will throw a mad party and burn the house down. Your government has reacted to a gross mistrust of the guidlines they had in place. Yeah, maybe they aren't good parents either?
 

Warby

Well-Known Member
An interesting read

The writer of this article has heard something interesting and thrown it in with a pile of related big words to try and make a point, which they've missed entirely. Interesting, but incorrect.

R0 (how fast the virus is spreading) and K (how it is spreading) are not competing variables as has been presented here. They serve different purposes and tell us different things. This journalist hasn't just stumbled on some secret sauce that every epidemiologist and public health expert in the world has missed or is trying to keep secret for some reason - they are already aware of the distribution of the virus, but that's not what is important in monitoring the spread of the virus, which is what R0 is being used for.

R0 has been so widely spoken about and tracked so closely because it is the variable that tells us how quickly the virus is spreading. A high R0 figure means that the virus is spreading quickly, because each person on average is spreading it to more people. When public health measures are successful they result in a lower R0 figure, because the spread of the virus has slowed as each person spreads the virus to less other people. In order to "flatten the curve" the spread needed to be slowed, hence the monitoring of R0.

Public health is managed at a population level, not an individual or local level. It is interesting and useful to note that COVID-19 has more of a tendency to spread via clusters and it informs public health policy - ie reduce gathering sizes, limit public events, etc etc - but it would be a completely useless thing to monitor as a means of measuring performance in combating the virus. It's not going to suddenly change its distribution patterns or mechanisms. The variable to monitor performance here is R0, hence.. funnily enough.. we monitor R0.

As to the points the article makes about contact tracing, again, the writer has missed the point. She presents it as an "either/or" position, where contact tracers work forwards from when the patient is likely to have been infected but says that they instead should be working backwards to find where they contracted it. This misses the point of why contact tracing is being done - not to paint a history of the virus and create headlines by identifying clusters, but to find people who may have the virus and not know about it. Going backwards in time searching for potential clusters that may or may not exist would take significantly more resources and provide limited additional value. Think about it - How far back do you go, if not the current standard 2 weeks, 4 weeks? 6? And then what? Every single person for those additional weeks becomes another contact to get tested? The logic presented in the article is that by going back to find who the person was infected by, then contact trace from them - But to what end? and for what value? If they were infected by some super-spreader as suggested then other infected people will come forward and be tested anyway, contact tracing will do its thing and we are in the same place for less resources... For some reason the author seems to believe that this would better allow us to identify clusters and super-spreaders .... How does the author think that all of the current clusters and super-spreaders were identified? With the current contact tracing methods...
 

Warby

Well-Known Member
Some will find this interesting, some will find it as predicted facts coming true and scary, some will try and debunk a well respected doctor, some may even see it as a waste of their time, oh to be soooo busy....
I find it to be concerning but at last my thoughts and predictions from months ago are starting to be seen as what they are, ah some validation and relief that I am not nuts.

I found this one interesting for the data and quotes, although the writer is a twat lol. So much assumption and causation without supporting evidence (ie the assertion that because other deaths are down while COVID is up, this must mean that those deaths are instead being incorrectly noted as COVID deaths.. uhh, what? lol)

The stuff about Sweden though I found very interesting. Sweden is proving to be an intriguing test case, I think, less because of what is actually happening but because of the different spin that is being put on it by media and health commentators. For any given piece of data out of Sweden you can find one article lauding it as a proof of their success while another berates them for their failure.

Taking the data and quotes in that article at face value though, it certainly paints an interesting picture and makes alot of sense. I absolutely agree that, from what's presented there, Sweden does seem to have been one of the only nations which has truly stuck to their guns on using a suppression rather than elimination strategy. As has been pointed out, cultural differences have to be taken in to account as being at least partly responsible for the success or failure of any strategy, but it's interesting none the less.

I am just really looking forward to a few years from now, when this is largely behind us (or we've learned to live with it) and we start getting some good quality, peer reviewed, studies on the strategies, results and aftermath globally.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
According to the media the USA (read as Trump) has done very poorly whilst Sweden has done well and UK well whatever. All 3 countries have similar death rates per million USA 648 Sweden 583 UK 623. But the cases per million are miles apart. USA 23,165 Sweden 9,320 UK 7,584 for a ratio of deaths per infection of 2.8% 6.3% 8.2% Australia is running at 3.3% Wuhan was 7.7% and Worldwide is 2.9%
Sometimes I just like to play with numbers.
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Thats all wrong now, haven't you seen the latest?
WHO, from latest "scientific studies" has announced that 1 in 10 across the planet has had the virus according to their calculations and between 30 and 50% are asymptomatic.
To me that makes the death toll less than the common flue so why the shut downs?
 

landcruiser_91

New Member
hey all,

Any of you older folk on here who live in a city, might be a good idea to head bush if you can, sooner rather than later. The probability of this getting way worse before it gets better are sky high and getting higher...
yous should come up Dargo, i live here and it is super lonely and quiet up here atm
 

Kippie

Moderator
To me that makes the death toll less than the common flue so why the shut downs?

I wonder how you came to that conclusion. Covid19 deaths world wide to date just over 1 million despite all the lockdowns, social distancing etc. and its end is not yet in sight, whereas seasonal flu deaths range between 291,000 and 646,000.

 

rogerazz

4x4 Earth Contributer
Just to keep the conversation going, this makes interesting and I reckon fairly sensible reading, that compares annual flu against covid19 in the United States.
 
Top