By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Serious question, what the hell is the point in these? Look's like people who have had the vax, can still spread it, so I just why?
For me, it's looking more ridiculous each day, when they first mentioned it was at the time when they said the vaccine would stop the spread, but looking at the case numbers the last few weeks, this is clearly not the case, be quite silly not to be allowed to do something when there isn't any difference from someone who has had the jab or not.
[Post edited 3 Sep 2021 22:24]
libera nos a malo
0
Vaccine passports on 19:18 - Sep 6 with 1247 views
Yes and you also can't tell 3 dead people are less than 6 dead people.
No it is worse than that because you actually can tell the difference, but you choose not to because it does not fit your world view. You did the same with the dead in the other study as well.
Exactly what I would expect from you, as are the insults.
0
Vaccine passports on 21:08 - Sep 6 with 1206 views
I don't care about their "academic qualifications". Even a ten year old knows that 6 is more than 3, they justify ignoring the difference because they rate the study as poor. But the dead people are still dead no matter how good or bad the study is. That is the part that you also choose to ignore because of their educations. You carry on ignoring I couldn't care less.
Do you seriously think that a paper published in one of the most respected medical journals in the world, written by respected academics who have spent their life researching infectious disease, peer reviewed by the same and read by medical professionals from around the world, all of whom desperate to find a way out of this pandemic contains such a simple and obvious contradictory piece of data that they have all missed it?
But this obvious mistake has been noticed by a retired factory worker who found it on Google, and it proves their work to be incorrect?
Stop trying to do science. You can't.
1
Vaccine passports on 22:00 - Sep 6 with 1174 views
Do you seriously think that a paper published in one of the most respected medical journals in the world, written by respected academics who have spent their life researching infectious disease, peer reviewed by the same and read by medical professionals from around the world, all of whom desperate to find a way out of this pandemic contains such a simple and obvious contradictory piece of data that they have all missed it?
But this obvious mistake has been noticed by a retired factory worker who found it on Google, and it proves their work to be incorrect?
Stop trying to do science. You can't.
Why don't you look at the actual study data, oh I forgot you don't know how to read that 3 people died in the test group and 6 people died in the Control group after the 15 day period. Or that 1 died in the test group and 3 died in the control group after 7 days. I posted the information from the study. So here is table s9 from here https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl
Table S9. Primary and secondary outcomes for the intention-to-treat population* Outcomes Hydroxychloro- quine + Azithro- mycin (HCQA) Hydroxychloro- quine (HCQ) Control HCQA vs. Cont HCQ vs. Cont HCQA vs. HCQ (n=217) (n=221) (n=227) Effect measure Effect measure Effect measure (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Ordinal outcome at 15 days, median (IQR) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) OR 0.81 (0.54 - 1.23) OR 0.96 (0.64 - 1.43) OR 0.85 (0.56 - 1.28) Death 3 (1.4) 7 (3.2) 6 (2.6) Patient on mechanical ventilation. 10 (4.6) 6 (2.7) 7 (3.1) Patient in hospital on noninvasive ventilation or HFNC 0 (0) 3 (1.4) 2 (0.9) Patient in hospital, with oxygen. 5 (2.3) 6 (2.7) 6 (2.6) Patient in hospital, without oxygen. 15 (6.9) 14 (6.3) 11 (4.8) Patient not hospitalized but with limitations on ac- tivities 27 (12.4) 33 (14.9) 42 (18.5) Patient not hospitalized with no limitations on ac- tivities 157 (72.4) 152 (68.8) 153 (67.4) Secondary outcomes Ordinal outcome at 7 days, median (IQR) 1 (1 — 2) (n=216) 2 (1 — 2) (n=219) 1 (1 - 2.5) OR 0.86 (0.59 - 1.25) OR 1.02 (0.71 - 1.48) OR 0.84 (0.58 - 1.22) Death 1 (0.5) 3 (1.4) 3 (1.3)
Now you can read it for yourself. Note that it is Hydroxychloro-quine + Azithro-mycin (HCQA) (not HCQ on it's own) that is the successful treatment, but even that was not optimised with the addition of Zinc as specified by the doctors that developed the best protocol.
For their summary they used this line of the table Ordinal outcome at 15 days, median (IQR) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) OR 0.81 (0.54 - 1.23) OR 0.96 (0.64 - 1.43) OR 0.85 (0.56 - 1.28)
Not deaths.
Now tell me again that 3 is not less than 6 from their data. and which is the most important outcame if it is not death.
[Post edited 6 Sep 2021 22:02]
0
Vaccine passports on 22:50 - Sep 6 with 1144 views
Why don't you look at the actual study data, oh I forgot you don't know how to read that 3 people died in the test group and 6 people died in the Control group after the 15 day period. Or that 1 died in the test group and 3 died in the control group after 7 days. I posted the information from the study. So here is table s9 from here https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl
Table S9. Primary and secondary outcomes for the intention-to-treat population* Outcomes Hydroxychloro- quine + Azithro- mycin (HCQA) Hydroxychloro- quine (HCQ) Control HCQA vs. Cont HCQ vs. Cont HCQA vs. HCQ (n=217) (n=221) (n=227) Effect measure Effect measure Effect measure (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Ordinal outcome at 15 days, median (IQR) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) OR 0.81 (0.54 - 1.23) OR 0.96 (0.64 - 1.43) OR 0.85 (0.56 - 1.28) Death 3 (1.4) 7 (3.2) 6 (2.6) Patient on mechanical ventilation. 10 (4.6) 6 (2.7) 7 (3.1) Patient in hospital on noninvasive ventilation or HFNC 0 (0) 3 (1.4) 2 (0.9) Patient in hospital, with oxygen. 5 (2.3) 6 (2.7) 6 (2.6) Patient in hospital, without oxygen. 15 (6.9) 14 (6.3) 11 (4.8) Patient not hospitalized but with limitations on ac- tivities 27 (12.4) 33 (14.9) 42 (18.5) Patient not hospitalized with no limitations on ac- tivities 157 (72.4) 152 (68.8) 153 (67.4) Secondary outcomes Ordinal outcome at 7 days, median (IQR) 1 (1 — 2) (n=216) 2 (1 — 2) (n=219) 1 (1 - 2.5) OR 0.86 (0.59 - 1.25) OR 1.02 (0.71 - 1.48) OR 0.84 (0.58 - 1.22) Death 1 (0.5) 3 (1.4) 3 (1.3)
Now you can read it for yourself. Note that it is Hydroxychloro-quine + Azithro-mycin (HCQA) (not HCQ on it's own) that is the successful treatment, but even that was not optimised with the addition of Zinc as specified by the doctors that developed the best protocol.
For their summary they used this line of the table Ordinal outcome at 15 days, median (IQR) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) 1 (1 — 2) OR 0.81 (0.54 - 1.23) OR 0.96 (0.64 - 1.43) OR 0.85 (0.56 - 1.28)
Not deaths.
Now tell me again that 3 is not less than 6 from their data. and which is the most important outcame if it is not death.
[Post edited 6 Sep 2021 22:02]
We've been here before. Exactly here. Have you forgotten?
That is a table of results from a paper. Not the paper itself. It is completely devoid of any context whatsoever.
A paper that concludes :-
"Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care."
But you, from looking at one table in the appendix think that the authors have included a mistake whioch proves HCQ works? Not only the authors but everyone who has read it since, apart from the lunatics on whatever website you got this partial and out of contect information from?
Go and read the full paper. This is may help you :-
This Professor confirms that the data now shows that natural protection from catching covid, is better than the vaccine. Protection from the vaccine isn't as effective and doesn't last as long. It doesn't stop the transmission in the same way and doesn't reduce the viral load in the same way. "There's no doubt" he says.
The government are trying to overrule the science.
This Professor confirms that the data now shows that natural protection from catching covid, is better than the vaccine. Protection from the vaccine isn't as effective and doesn't last as long. It doesn't stop the transmission in the same way and doesn't reduce the viral load in the same way. "There's no doubt" he says.
The government are trying to overrule the science.
Karol Sikora is a charlatan.
Catching covid, particularly the Delta variant, will give you good protection against catching that variant again. But you have to catch covid to get that protetcion, and it will wane as protection from being vaccinated does. Catching covid puts you, others and the NHS at considerable risk. If we try to follow the natural heard immunity plan we'll forever be in and out of lockdown.
Prof Sikora is a cancer specialist, covid isn't cancer. Don't listen to him.
0
Vaccine passports on 09:51 - Sep 7 with 1042 views
This Professor confirms that the data now shows that natural protection from catching covid, is better than the vaccine. Protection from the vaccine isn't as effective and doesn't last as long. It doesn't stop the transmission in the same way and doesn't reduce the viral load in the same way. "There's no doubt" he says.
The government are trying to overrule the science.
I thought this right-wing shill had gone to ground.I guess GB News is his last bastion. He is talking absolute twaddle. Even if infection gives better immunity than a vaccine, it is beyond stupid to risk an infection which has about a 1 in 100 chance of killing a healthy 50 year old, about a 1 in 20 chance of hospitalisation and a 1 in 10 chance of long term issues. The vaccines improve your chances around nine-fold with in reality very little risk. If you get infected than you will have 'natural immunity too. But far less likely to be ill.
What is clear is those previously infected, then vaccinated have the best immunity. That tells us a potential way forward for future vaccination.
By the way, he is only a Professor in his own, privately funded, medical school. You should read up on him. He also blocks every infectious disease scientist and medic who disagrees with him on Twitter. Which is almost everyone.
1
Vaccine passports on 10:18 - Sep 7 with 1034 views
I thought this right-wing shill had gone to ground.I guess GB News is his last bastion. He is talking absolute twaddle. Even if infection gives better immunity than a vaccine, it is beyond stupid to risk an infection which has about a 1 in 100 chance of killing a healthy 50 year old, about a 1 in 20 chance of hospitalisation and a 1 in 10 chance of long term issues. The vaccines improve your chances around nine-fold with in reality very little risk. If you get infected than you will have 'natural immunity too. But far less likely to be ill.
What is clear is those previously infected, then vaccinated have the best immunity. That tells us a potential way forward for future vaccination.
By the way, he is only a Professor in his own, privately funded, medical school. You should read up on him. He also blocks every infectious disease scientist and medic who disagrees with him on Twitter. Which is almost everyone.
"Natural protection" Ye Gods,so we leave it all to nature then. We could do that and have none of our babies vaxed and let them catch Rubella Measles and Mumps and suffer. Hell, we could also let the old get shingles too.
OK, 30% of people in Wales haven't had the jab, they attend events, football, nightclubs etc, they go to work, to the pub, and yesterday kids went back to school. What if the majority of the spread is because of the 30%?
Think that’s England and Scotland though isn’t it?
I am sure Drakeford will dither for another couple of weeks then follow England and Scotland particularly with the 7 day average in New cases continuing to rise in Wales
I am sure Drakeford will dither for another couple of weeks then follow England and Scotland particularly with the 7 day average in New cases continuing to rise in Wales
Agreed, Drakers needs to set his stall out. Boris has set his out and it’s going to be interesting to see whether he sticks by what he’s said will happen re nightclubs etc or whether he’ll change his mind.
Was talking to someone who worked in a school over the weekend, was told infection rates are already climbing and absences increasing. It’s really important ids get their education and that needs to be a priority. Could be a bumpy ride, but let’s hope the vaccines can get us over the line.
I am sure Drakeford will dither for another couple of weeks then follow England and Scotland particularly with the 7 day average in New cases continuing to rise in Wales
Cases are rising everywhere not just in Wales, just for a bit of clarity like.
They are, after all, the biggest well/breeding ground of Covid.
But hey, you keep posting divisive nonsense for the mouth-breathers to swallow.
If you had a brain you'd be dangerous. If the population is 80% jabbed then the numbers most certainly don't stack up. Especially considering many if the unjabbed will have natural immunity anyway. You and the rest of the brainwashed will need to come up with something better
If you had a brain you'd be dangerous. If the population is 80% jabbed then the numbers most certainly don't stack up. Especially considering many if the unjabbed will have natural immunity anyway. You and the rest of the brainwashed will need to come up with something better
Whilst you would be twice as dangerous, sweetie.
As for your last line my (new) irony meter exploded. I'll have to buy a job lot if you continue to post.
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Agreed, Drakers needs to set his stall out. Boris has set his out and it’s going to be interesting to see whether he sticks by what he’s said will happen re nightclubs etc or whether he’ll change his mind.
Was talking to someone who worked in a school over the weekend, was told infection rates are already climbing and absences increasing. It’s really important ids get their education and that needs to be a priority. Could be a bumpy ride, but let’s hope the vaccines can get us over the line.
Seems to me like nothing more than a ruse to try and coerce more young people into having the vaccine.
I believe these vaccine passports wwill be cancelled as quick as they come in.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.