Jump to content

Davo

Members
  • Content Count

    8,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

 Content Type 

Profiles

Store

News Articles

Western Sydney Wanderers Youth Match Reports

Western Sydney Wanderers Match Database

Western Sydney Wanderers Women Match Reports

Western Sydney Wanderers Player Database

Western Sydney Wanderers NPL

Forums

Calendar

Posts posted by Davo

  1. 10 minutes ago, marron said:

    It's always been this way.

    It was this way for smallpox and polio and TB and whatever else medicine has combated.

    There would have been doctors vocalising their concerns in their circles at those times, absolutely no doubt.

    The difference is now that those minority voices actually have MORE of a voice than they ever did. Which is another reason the claims of cover ups and all the rest are so bizarre. Everyone has a megaphone and access to millions of people.

    And then those millions of  non-experts amplify them, often without nuance. And that creates this situation where perfectly rational people who always trusted this stuff before are not able to see that nothing has changed other than access to the dissenting voices. Those people worry about conspiracy and shadowy forces manipulating things which is also bizarre to me because if shadowy forces exsist they are manipulating your news feed to give you stuff to sow doubt (and we actually have hard evidence for this being the case!)

    A little off topic, but the mention of smallpox reminded me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography that I've seen posted a bunch of times during the pandemic.

    Quote

    In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the smallpox taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of the parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.

     

  2. 12 hours ago, hughsey said:

    They’re bloody useless. It’s rare I’ll get through a replay of a show without issues and they’re littered with so many ads now it’s worse than watching the normal broadcast.

    Streaming services are even worse as they have the same number of ad breaks but a smaller selection of ads, so you see the same handful over and over again.

  3. Even if the courts rule that you can’t stop someone from working if they’re unvaccinated, the employer would still be required to ensure the safety of their employees and customers.

    My guess is that in some cases they would make the safeguards so onerous that the unvaccinated won’t want to work there. I could see separate break areas, masks at all times, negative tests every three days, etc.

  4. 1 hour ago, Stokz said:

    Also with NSW and particularly Western Sydney over 80% first dose, surely some the current restrictions need to ease a BIT.

    1st dose still gives 70% protection. That's not little.

    Get rid of that stupid curfew and hour limits. 

    Just focus on outdoor stuff, open the outdoor pools etc... but limit numbers, maybe extend the km's to 10. Only so many things people in Western syd can do within a 5km radius.

    This is the 2nd school holidays in a row where the kids are still in lockdown. 

    It seems like a lot of the current restrictions have been put in place in a way that allows easier policing and enforcement, rather than what makes the most sense from a public health perspective. I get that they need to make the rules enforceable, however the main inputs should be reducing the risk of the virus while minimising the impact on society.

    The data seems to show that the biggest risks are indoor workplaces and household transmission. Outdoor settings with social distancing and masks are very low risk. I don't see the benefit in limiting peoples time outside to an hour. I'd also like to see public pools reopen. They can control who's there with class bookings and check in systems, they're usually so chlorinated you're basically swimming in a pool of disinfectant, and in terms of weighing up the risks and benefits, there's been an increase in childhood drownings that are being attributed to the lack of swimming lessons. Even if they limited it to kids lessons to start with as that would have the biggest benefit. If that doesn't cause any major problems they can start to open them up to more people.

    I'd also like to see household bubbles, similar to the singles bubble. That way you could have two households able to either visit each others homes or at a minimum be able to spend time together in public outside. You're adding the risk that one person with the virus would spread it through two households instead of one, however we're already accepting that risk with the singles bubble. That would have the benefit of extended families being able to see each other, or two families with kids who are friends being able to play together and socialise.

    This would all be a lot harder to police, but as I said, ease of enforcement shouldn't be at the top of the list.

  5. 31 minutes ago, Stokz said:

     

    Interesting read above.

    But why do you think UK is not following the Covid passport rule ?

    There are a few bits that I disagree with pretty strongly.

    Quote

    If we had introduced a flu vaccine passport then, yes, there would have been a small reduction in flu fatalities, but it's also true that there would be fewer fatalities if we banned motor vehicles. Both are absurd suggestions because it would have been self-evident that the collateral economic and societal damage was too high a price.

    What's absurd is equating banning cars with a vaccine passport. The car is the cause of the harm, so the equivalent would be banning the flu. It doesn't make sense. As mentioned previously in this thread, the better comparison to a vaccine passport is a drivers licence. Evidence that some controls have been put in place to reduce the risk of harm. Nobody argues that drivers licences lead to "collateral economic and societal damage that is too high", even though not having a licence means people can lose their jobs.

    Quote

    If we had no lockdowns then our overall fatalities would have risen but these statistical ratios would have held.

    We saw overseas that this just isn't true. Once you overwhelm the health system the death rate goes up. People who would have survived by receiving top level care will either get compromised care, or as we saw in some developed countries, no care at all. Our system is currently stretched to the point that elective and non-critical procedures are being postponed, and we're still seeing ambulances queueing up for hours to get in to hospitals. Imagine things without a lockdown.

    He mentions the flu, and that's a great example of how effective lockdowns are. In 2019 there were 953 confirmed flu deaths. In 2020 it was 37. To date there have been 0 confirmed flu deaths in 2021. If lockdowns for covid managed to reduce flu deaths from nearly 1000 to 0, yet we're currently seeing about 50 deaths a week from covid, I imagine things would be pretty bad without the lockdowns, and how easily the health system would be overwhelmed.

    Also I disagree with the overall premise, as I think we should be doing more to address the flu. We already do more, and give up more, to prevent things that cause far fewer deaths.

    Quote

    The credit belongs to Tory backbenchers who in significant numbers voiced their concerns about legislating a two-tier society and the marginalisation of millions.

    I'm sure there will be a lot of people in the UK surprised to hear that the party that tried to end free meals for the poor during a lockdown are to thank for preventing a two-tier society and marginalisation. They also supported a lockdown that Newman believes was unnecessary, but he gives them a pass on that.

  6. 17 hours ago, mack said:

    Apparently there's glitch in the Apple Subscriptions for Paramount+ where you can sign up for a monthly trial and then go into Apple Subscriptions and get a year for $5.99.

    Yep I did it yesterday and it worked. Got the confirmation email and Apple billed me for the $5.99. I just checked my subscriptions in my Apple ID and it still says I have the annual subscription but I can’t select that option anymore.

  7. On 08/09/2021 at 9:43 PM, GunnerWanderer said:

    Funny story about Optus I signed up just for the World Cup last time and then the debacle with their streaming (sure some of you remembered)  I rung up and complained and said I’m cancelling they apologised and said no worries but we will at least leave your active subscription until World Cup ends 

    some what 3 years on it’s still active lol 😂 I was spewing they didn’t get A-League 

    I still only have Foxtel but now A-League is gone I’m thinking of canning it but then again it means I’ll have to get all the steaming services and update the internet at home so still tossing up 

    I think I’ll try and see what illegal streams come for A-League and see how good they are 

    I had a similar experience. They had their apology offer for people who they screwed at the 2018 World Cup where they would give customers a free Fetch mini box. The next time I was at the shops I wandered into an Optus store and asked them about it. Walked out with the box and a years free Optus Sport. That allowed me to continue using it on my phone, iPad, etc. and the Fetch box for using it on my tv. Instead of one year I ended up getting two for free before it told me the subscription ended and it stopped working on the apps. The Fetch box still works fine though, and every month I get an invoice from Optus for $0.

  8. New restrictions on prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19

    The TGA have introduced additional restrictions on GP's prescribing Ivermectin. Now they are only allowed to prescribe it for TGA approved conditions. Before anyone accuses them of a coverup or censorship, the restrictions apply to GP's, however certain specialists such as infectious disease physicians are allowed to prescribe for unapproved indications.

    Apparently one of the reasons for the change is because "there has been a 3-4-fold increased dispensing of ivermectin prescriptions in recent months, leading to national and local shortages for those who need the medicine for scabies and parasite infections. It is believed that this is due to recent prescribing and dispensing for unapproved uses, such as COVID-19."

  9. So you could frontload two marquees in year one and have them on minimum wage under the cap in year two. Backload two players on minimum wage under the cap in year one and marquees in year two. Have two designated players on $600k for both years. Then by taking up the cap space of two minimum wage players you'd effectively have 6 players outside the cap, two on $600k a year and two one whatever you can afford to pay them.

  10. 30 minutes ago, MartinTyler said:

    To be honest I have to agree.....I've switched off as all I'm really interested in is the numbers and where. I've about had about enough of Gaslighting Gladys who's getting increasingly narky when asked tough questions. 

    There are plenty like you who have and enough and don't tune in anymore, which is understandable given the way they desperately try to avoid answering any questions, however it looks like there are a lot of people who do tune in.

    ABC News and Sky news, i.e. both sides of the political divide, show a daily spike in viewers during the 11am briefings.

  11. So they're saying that cases are expected to peak this week, and that hospitalisations, deaths and the load on the intensive care system will peak in October. Basically we're just about to get into the worst of this wave.

    Then in the same press conference, they're not going to bother turning up or being accountable to the media during the worst of this wave.

  12. 20 minutes ago, wendybr said:

    When it has now been shown to be temporary protection only...of 6 months or so (even after 2 jabs), at what point will the billions of dollars spent become too much to sustain?

    Will governments be covering that ongoing cost, or will it be turned over to individuals?

    $44 a Pfizer jab per 70 -80% of the population every 6 months..indefinitely.

    To stave off something that 10-20% of people don't even know they've got, that 80% of people experience as mild to moderate  symptoms, that people with significantly compromised health may require hospitalistion for, and 1% of the population will succumb to...if their health is already severely compromised.

    Yeah it'll be ongoing boosters, the same as other things like whooping cough etc.

    The alternative is we let everyone's vaccinations wear off, lose resistance to the virus and it runs through the whole community. Given that we've got a decent number of people vaccinated now and a strict lockdown, yet we're still seeing enough cases and hospitalisations that ambulances are queuing up at hospitals and ICU's are filling up, I don't want to see what it would be like without those protections in place. Plus with that many cases going around we'll see more mutations and variants, which could add additional risks.

    I'm completely guessing here, but I can't see there being huge numbers of people who would be unwell enough to require medical intervention in the form of prescribed medication, but not unwell enough to require hospitalisation or other additional medical intervention. Treatments may be able to save lives (and I genuinely hope they will) but I doubt they'll significantly reduce the load on the health system.

  13. I can imagine that email chain.

    "We'd be happy to chat as soon as possible."

    "Just following up on the previous email. If you have any questions please let me know." *adds high importance flag*

    "Can you please confirm you received the below email." *adds read receipt request*

  14. 9 minutes ago, wendybr said:

    Time will tell if the single focussed approach ie vaccines, was the best approach.

     

    But.. from the UK  a few days ago....EVERYONE, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, WILL get Covid. I imagine that's how it will be here too.

    The narrative has changed...again.

    So...worrying about who will pass it on to whom is maybe not such an issue, in the light of this latest pronouncement.

    It hasn't been vaccines only, there have been studies into treatments and more are ongoing now. My post was in response to your comment about prioritisation. Given the benefits of vaccines, both in reducing the spread of the disease and reducing the severity of the illness for those who still get it, I believe it was absolutely correct to dedicate a larger focus of limited research capacity to vaccines.

    Going back to our car analogies, it's like how car companies are putting more focus on active safety devices, such as anti-lock brakes, cars the detect obstructions and stop on their own, self driving cars etc. That's all time and resources that could be spent on passive safety like crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts, etc. They're still spending money on those things but have found that preventing the accident in the first place results in a bigger improvement in safety, rather than making things more survivable after you've already smashed into something.

    I can understand why people who don't want to get vaccinated would be pushing for more focus on treatment, but if the majority want to protect themselves with vaccines that's where the majority of focus will go. It makes it even more baffling why people would choose to not take the vaccine, particularly as it appears more inevitable the everyone will be exposed to it at some point.

  15. 3 hours ago, wendybr said:

    Out of step with sentiments here...but the stats here do help keep things in perspective.

    Yes yes...it's 2GB

    https://fb.watch/7TfMj1Mj7O/

    The focus of the global medical regulatory bodies, politicians and the media ( which is currently the promotional arm of the politicians) has always only been focused on vaccines, rather than exploring early treatments to prevent progression to the severe  stages of the disease...which occurs in 4-5% of people with the virus.

    Vaccine policies alone seem not to prevent hospitalisation of the critically ill (see Israel until they started their perpetual 6 monthly booster strategy).

    It's a shame that early treatment protocols, which may have prevented those hospitalisations, has never been any sort of priority...in Western countries at least.

    Anyway...lots and lots if stats in the Ben Fordham item.

    Presumably because it makes more sense to prioritise vaccinations over treatments.

    Treatments don't help until after you're infected (and have likely infected others), while vaccinations help to prevent you from getting infected in the first place (over 80% from the evidence available), reduce the chance of breakthrough cases being passed on to others (between 40% and 60% reduction), and already act as a pretty effective way of reducing the severity of the illness if you do get it (over 70% of people in NSW have had at least one dose, yet 81% of people in NSW intensive care are unvaccinated).

    They absolutely should be looking into treatments, and there appear to be a number of studies going on, but the priority should definitely be vaccines.

  16. 1 hour ago, Sithslayer1991 said:

    The Korea vs Lebanon was another terrible game. I think all teams are affected by travel and level of their opposition. Take the 3 points and we move on. Lets see how next month plays out for us. I think for Vietnam we missed Boyle and Leckie down the right to Mcgree is no winger which is why we favoured the left side.

    I also think that as jammy as it is, just play Duke up front and spam crosses in. May not be pretty but it's always been an effective advantage we have over a lot of AFC teams, going back to the Josh Kennedy days.

  17. 4 hours ago, Stokz said:

    For People who want a Vaccine Passport. You don't need one if:

    You have Influenza
    If you have AIDS
    If you are Convicted Pedophile
    Are a Convicted Felon
    Have any other infectious Disease

    Because privacy and discrimination.....

    Don't pedophiles go on the sex offender registry and convicted criminals get a criminal record?

  18. Apparently Brazil has a rule where anyone who has been to the UK in the the previous 14 days and isn't a Brazilian citizen must quarantine upon arrival in Brazil. Four of the Argentine players play in the Premier League and would need to isolate, instead three of the four were in the starting XI for the game. Anvisa (Brazil's version of the TGA) claim that they made false declarations when entering the country. Argentine officials claim there were special prevision and exclusions for international football and they've followed all the rules.

  19. 10 hours ago, wendybr said:
    Table 1: Newly confirmed and probable TTS cases for the week of 27 August – 2 September 2021‡

    New confirmed TTS

    New probable TTS

    Two new cases:

    • 23-year-old man from NSW

    • 59-year-old woman from Queensland

    Seven new cases:

    • 51, 54 and 62-year-old men from NSW

    • 60 and 71-year-old women from NSW

    • 66-year-old man from Western Australia

    • 95-year-old woman from Victoria

    It’s not necessarily a problem, but it’s certainly a characteristic of this kind of data that you get detailed and accurate information of the deaths caused or suspected to be caused by the vaccines, but less hard data on the number of people who would have died had they not taken the vaccine. That has to rely on modelling and estimates.

    12.6 million people have received their first dose in Australia and 9 have had their deaths confirmed to be caused by the vaccine or suspected to be caused by it. That’s a death rate of 0.00007%. If you count each dose as an opportunity for an adverse reaction (and the data suggests that once you’ve safely had the first the odds of issues from subsequent ones are basically zero) then you need to count second doses, so it becomes 9 in 20.6 million or 0.00004%.

    There have been 60,134 confirmed COVID cases in Australia and 1,036 deaths, or 1.7%.

    Given those numbers and the fact that the vast majority of deaths and ICU admissions have been people who have not yet been vaccinated, it’s not a stretch to assume that the number of deaths prevented by the vaccine would be orders of magnitude more than those caused by it.

    Given the theory you mentioned that we’ll never have full herd immunity because of breakthrough cases, and that this would mean we will all inevitably be exposed to the virus at some point, I can’t see how people choose to be unvaccinated. You’re choosing the 1.7% death rate over the 0.00001-0.0001% death rate, you’re hoping they’ve developed effective treatments by then and you’re hoping the people you’ve inevitably passed the virus on to will be ok.

  20. 38 minutes ago, wendybr said:

    Yes- sure.

    But by that same token, how many deaths have been "with Covid" on top of many comorbidites that could have lead imminently to end of life scenarios, rather than "of Covid"?

    The death rate of people minus those deaths of people past the age of life expectancy, and in aged care facilities (with comorbidities that meant their health was severely compromised already) is perhaps what should have determined how this pandemic was managed.

    I know that might sound harsh - but in hindsight, I'm not sure the right balance has been reached - considering the terrible toll this is taking on so many other people throughout society.

    And I do know there are many others of all ages who have health issues that absolutely needed to be factored into responses.

     

    What mess it all is.

    But by that line of reasoning wouldn't that also mean removing people from the road toll if they die in a car crash while being past life expectancy and having comorbidities?

×
×
  • Create New...