Stubby

Does this suggest that all the deceased were double-vaccinated, then? I thought the vast majority of seriously ill and dead folks were unvaccinated. In the name of sanity... I think it's time to stop reading this stuff because trying to fathom the truth is like a bout of explosive diarrhea in the head.

Yes, very plasticky, Johnno2, hence this update. The GPX Razer is an affordable bike, and it looks cheap without a loving hand polish. But the part that makes it look the cheapest is the smooth plastic panel under the tank with the giant Razer decal. It reminds me of an Airfix model. Anyway, I got a professional to take the old sticker off and replace it with some quality carbon fiber vinyl wrap. The photo here doesn't do it justice, but this minor modification on either side has made a huge difference. I might even get the front mudguard done. Stubby

RB might feel compelled to share his opinions all over social media. But umm... no one who sees his headlines is forced to read what he's written. I'll leave it at that ????

I know of him, Humbug, and I've read a few of his posts in the past, but I don't follow the bloke, so I'm neither a fan nor a critic. It's just that I don't think people deserve a virtual slagging off from strangers on public forums... and there's plenty of it around (they know who they are). If you don't like what someone posts or stands for, why not simply ignore them? You'd feel a lot better for it. But it seems—going by your rant—like RB has got a rent-free space inside your head. Look, I don't know much about most things, but what I do know is that it's nice to be nice; it's not nice to be nasty. That's all I'm saying. And on that note, I wish you a lovely weekend ???? Stubby

I have to say, for a non-fan, you seem to know an awful lot about the chap. Even down to his mental health condition... if indeed your distant prognosis of someone you don't care for is accurate. Eeee, there's none funnier than folks, that's for sure.

See my latest post about that, DN.

I hope all Big Pharma isn't as secretive as Pfizer. It's quite worrying that it took a court order to get them to release the possible side effects of their vaccines. I can understand why they might want to keep them from public view… well, sort of. But why hide them from doctors and others in the medical profession? We already know you can't sue these companies for harmful side effects, so they're not hiding from potential lawsuits. With headlines like the OP here and secret research results from Big Pharma, it's no wonder some people take an anti stance.

Four possible cases of BA.2.2 Omicron sub-variant detected in Thailand NO CAUSE FOR ALARM! OK, fine, so here's an idea. How about not posting about stuff until there IS cause for alarm? I mean, how do you want the reader not to panic or react to the news? Geesh, there's enough global doom and gloom to last a generation., so please... STOP IT, just STOP IT. Thank you. Stubby

The oil industry must be the only business where price-fixing is not a crime. The greedy producers get away with coordinated supply cuts when the cost per barrel gets too low, then increase supply when prices are through the roof. It's a scam, alright, and they've got us little people over a barrel... pun intended.

Of course, it does; it's finger exercise. And many on this forum would qualify for the Olympics if it became a sport. And let's not forget the Barstool Bobs who get plenty of lip exercise as they share their worldly knowledge with anyone who cares to listen. So, any part of your person that moves is getting some form of exercise, but is it enough? Well, the mirror should give the answer to that ????

IT ALL BEGAN IN 1977 First came the middle-aged obese. Then came the overweight 20-somethings. Later, the podgy teens and pre-teens emerged. A generation on, and we saw tubby toddlers, and now we have fat babies... for crying out loud! And that includes the good people of Thailand, too. It must be like giving birth to baby rhinoceroses. WE ARE WHAT WE EAT! It's true; the dangerous foods people consume have caused all this excess flab. You know, rubber sausages from 7-eleven, synthetic micro dinners, and drinks that glow in the dark. Then, food manufacturers began adding loads of extra sugar, salt, and chemical flavorings to "healthy alternatives." Why? Because they had to put some taste into otherwise TASTLESS boxes of low-fat this, and no-fat that. ARE YOU EATING YOURSELF TO DEATH? Let's not forget how the world now snacks between meals. It seems that people are constantly munching away on something. Just two generations ago, if you ate anything substantial between meal times, it was a rare treat, not the norm. CAN YOU BE FAT AND FIT? Not all fat or morbidly obese people are unfit and at high risk of metabolic syndrome. Sumo wrestlers are an excellent example of a group considered metabolically healthy obese. They eat far too much than is normal, of course. But it's all-natural, healthy food, not processed junk, and that's the point. The latter is what causes the build-up of dangerous visceral fat. Thus, sumo wrestlers don't suffer from heart attacks, strokes, or other symptoms of obesity while they're active in their careers. But unless you're a budding Sumo, it's better to aim for a healthy weight and diet if you have that choice and want to live as long as possible. Someone once said, "Eat your food as your medicine; otherwise, you have to eat medicine as your food." Stubby

I came here to ask questions and to be educated. Isn't asking about stuff how one finds answers and builds knowledge? And if I look daft and make a fool of myself in the process, then so be it. But I can say that I know more now than when I started the topic, and that's the point. Enjoy the rest of your day. Stubby

You're right, I am a dimwit when it comes to numbers, but that doesn't stop me from trying. I doubt I'm alone, though. Walk onto any busy high street with a clipboard and ask 100 random people if they understand the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. How many do you think will even know what you're talking about? Basic math, my eye.

I can see some new posts using the all-too-familiar COVID denier, anti-vaxxer, and anti-science, rhetoric. That is not what this topic is about. I can also see that some Inflammatory and off-topic posts have been removed... probably more name calling. IT'S OK TO QUESTION Those who question data and want more clarification are not anti-anything. If they were, they would say this is nonsense, that's a lie, and put down any response they happen to disagree with. Such people don't ask questions because they already have their answers. Some people have taken the time to write detailed responses to the opening post. They've been extremely helpful and appreciated. Those who want a heated debate with COVID deniers, anti-vaxxers, and science deniers are in the wrong place. My advice would be to search the forum and find a topic where you can really let rip. Thank you. Stubby

Fair comments, CH. The problem with the written word is that it's not always possible to come across how one intends. As a result, many debates on forums are misunderstandings rather than deliberate provocations. The exception to that is the internet troll, of course. Truce. Stubby.

There's no need to be so rude and presumptuous, CH. I agree that one should be mindful when debating scientific data in open forums, and even more so if the poster is someone of considerable influence. After all, there's always a risk of sewing doubt, mistrust, and confusion. But I assume you don't think it's wrong to question less than transparent or confusing data? And because scientists disagree on so many issues, there is no such thing as "The Science." Of course, I'm not anti-science. I doubt any of us would be living the lives we do without it. And I have no agenda. I'm just a random bloke trying to get grips with confusing data, that's all. Why bother? So that I can make better-informed decisions when it comes to matters of personal health. But please try to be a little less aggressive when responding to strangers on stuff you disagree with. Thank you. Stubby

It's not true, Placeholder. The more I look at numbers presented in textual, tabular, and graphical forms, the more it confuses me. And COVID-19 data can be some of the most confusing. Someone did try to explain this a while back, and it made some sense. But then I came across the same data presented differently and got confused again. That's why I posted here, and PB gave an excellent, simple, and logical breakdown. WHY THE CONFUSION? Because I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and never claim to be. Heck, I can't even recite the 7, 8, and 12 times tables. But being dim doesn't stop one from being curious and at least trying to understand complex data. And when it comes to health-related advice and advertising, ignorance is not bliss, that much I do know. WHY EVEN QUESTION THE DATA? I first started to question the data when my doctor wanted to put me on a statin. I'd heard a lot of good and bad things about these drugs. So, I decided to do a little research in my limited capacity as someone with a low IQ. Here's where the confusion began. ATORVASTATIN REDUCES HEART ATTACK RISK BY 36% I found a statin that claimed to reduce heart attack risk by a whopping 36%. Wow! I thought I'd found the information I needed. But then I noticed a less favorable excerpt in the search results pages, so I opened that. Here's what I found: Researchers monitored two groups over five years. Group 1: took a statin and 98.1% of them did NOT suffer a heart attack (1.9% did). Group 2: took a placebo, and 97% of them did NOT suffer a heart attack (3% did). That told me the statin reduced heart attack risk from 3% to 1.9% or about 1%. The author explained how they got the 36%, but that's where it went over my head. But I got the impression the 36% was a legal figure but clearly used to mislead the ignorant consumer. I mean, the simple math above tells me the risk reduction is a tad over 1%. I wasn't prepared to take a pill for the rest of my life for something with an almost negligible effect. If anyone thinks that's fair and honest advertising, please set me straight. OUR OVERMEDICALIZED WORLD We're bombarded with so much data these days. Indeed, medical experts constantly urge us to get tested for this, that, and the other <deleted>. But health-related numbers terrify many people, even though most don't understand them. We worry when medical experts tell us a thing is too high, too low, or on the wrong side of "normal." The latter is when people start taking medications for the so-called pre-conditions, you know, just in case. People worry about cholesterol levels, blood pressure readings, PSA scores (men), and so on. LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS? I suppose the least stressful approach is for laypeople to just listen to the experts. I remember a doctor trying to explain something to me once in technical language. He could have been speaking in Chinese for all I knew, so my reply went something like this: "Doctor, you know more than I do, and that's all I need to know." And with that, I headed to the front desk to pick up my prescription drugs. Today, though, I dare to question. WHY NUMBERS DIVIDE OPINIONS There are many online debates about data, with both sides claiming they're right and the other is wrong. But it's not that black and white, is it? You could find fully-referenced evidence to support whatever you want to believe in if you dig deep enough. Even doctors and scientists disagree on what constitutes high (dangerous) cholesterol levels. There are highly-qualified and respected experts on both sides of the argument. So when people say, shut up and follow "the science" and believe in the data... what science, and which data? JUST FOLLOW THE SCIENCE Richard Horton FRCP FMedSci is the editor-in-chief of a respected UK–based medical journal called the Lancet. Or he was; I don't know if he still is. Anyway, here's what he said about "the science." "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn towards darkness." Trusted source And I'm sure other experts strongly disagree with him, and there, dear reader, lies the problem. Anyhow, thanks for the contributions here; it's appreciated ???? Stubby

I agree, and it's the reason for my post here. If things were explained to Joe Public in non-doctor speak, there would probably be fewer virtual battles between the smarty pants, ill-informed, and plain ignorant. Great work, though, PB, you managed to educate me, and that's no easy task, so well done ???? Stubby

OK, thanks for taking the time to explain that, PB. You're a lot smarter than I am, that's for sure. I've concluded that medical stat reporting - although accurate - is perhaps not always honest. But I could also be wrong ???? Best regards, Stubby

Thanks, PB, so you're saying both sets of figures are correct? And which ones an expert uses depends on what message they want to get across? In the case of COVID-19 percentages, why don't they explain what the increase/decrease percentage is derived from, just so that it's clear for we laypeople? For example, this is an actual headline and quite typical when it comes to reporting COVID stats: COVID-19 Booster Reduces Delta Variant Mortality by 90%. But the question remains the same, i.e., 90% of what? Or perhaps it's better not to ask and just read it as intended. It would certainly make life a lot simpler, but it is frustrating. Stubby

All these percentages of risk and risk reduction continue to confuse me, even after two years of data bombardment. I assume those who post these figures have a better grasp of the stats. So… perhaps someone can break it all down as if explaining it to a 5-year-old? But first, let me go over the confusion. If an expert says there's an X% risk reduction by doing Y, it's a percentage of what—exactly? Let me try to explain as best I can. The example below is hypothetical to keep things as simple as possible. BOOSTER SHOTS REDUCE COVID-19 HOSPITALIZATIONS BY 50% If the chance of Omicron hospitalization is 2 in every 100 UNVACCINATED people, that's a risk of 2%. If the chance of Omicron hospitalization is 1 in every 100 VACCINATED people, that's a risk of 1%. 2% – 1% = 1% risk reduction. So how does the headline equate to 50%? From what I can see, it all depends on how the authors represent the figures. 1% risk ÷ 2% risk = 50% risk reduction. Or maybe I've got myself flummoxed over nothing—it happens! After all, I'm just a poorly educated bloke from a lower working-class background, so what do I know ???? Thank you in advance, Stubby

I guess most of them are not anti-all-vaccinations, despite being branded anti-vaxxers by the pro-vaxxers, Mr. Smith. They're most likely only concerned with the ongoing secrecy surrounding COVID trials... that's all. It's hard to have an intelligent debate while name calling/branding those who disagree, don't you think?

Joe Public must put trust in Big Pharma or not. See, the problem is that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine trial of some 30,000 participants is still ongoing. In fact, it's not scheduled to finish until October 27, 2022. But that in and of itself is not the main issue. Trusted Source: A recently published piece on News Medical reads, and I quote: "Scientists are beginning to grow worried about the seeming reluctance of these companies to release the raw data from the clinical trials, and three editors have written to the British Medical Journal to further demand this information be released." Trusted Source: It would give folks more confidence if the pharmaceutical companies released the COVID-9 vaccine trial data they have to date. But they won't, and it's not only Moderna, either. Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) and AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria) are also not telling. This is why there are still so many anti-COVID19- vaxxers. I guess most of them are not anti-all-vaccinations, despite being branded anti-vaxxers. They're most likely only concerned with the ongoing secrecy surrounding COVID jabs. Stubby

Me and Me and Me and My! My ego is the only "I". All the rest can go to hell Im ok so all is well.

That's interesting, thank you for posting. I was always under the impression that healthy folks had little to worry about, especially those under a certain age. I obviously haven't been keeping up with the ever changing data, but part of that has been for reasons of sanity.