5 hours ago, Ryan754326 said:

Guess you’re not aware that the vaccinated can do exactly the same. 
 

How do you think Omicron spread around the world so fast if nobody can get on a plane without a vaccination and a test?

Very aware of this. But the unvaccinated spread it more. That's been proven.

4 hours ago, Ryan754326 said:

If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen. The vaccines don’t do a good enough job of stopping infection to prevent new mutations from popping up. 

If you’re infected, the virus is replicating inside your body, and mutation is possible. Vaccinated or not. 

You really need a better source for your information.

3 hours ago, Ryan754326 said:

I absolutely do consider that they’ve given me a good degree of protection, that’s why I’m walking around in Mexico unmasked, wherever I can, without a care in the world what others choose for themselves. 
 

The CCP does have the power to lock down whole cities and compel vaccinations, but considering the staggeringly high case numbers in other more transparent countries with high levels of vaccination, where supposedly superior vaccines were used, I don’t buy the idea that China’s high level of social control and sub-par vaccines have been able to achieve such absurdly low case numbers. 

I know many in Mexico right now. If you're a foreigner and walking around unmasked, you'll be passing many locals off. Show some respect for them.  Mask up and don't spread the virus around.

22 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

But the unvaccinated spread it more

In the lab tests maybe, but in the real world setting; comparing Au. to R-SA where Australia's population, the rate of double vaccinated is 3 X that of RSA and the booster rate is 30 X that of RSA, BUT, (and this goes to your irrelevant/meaningless talking point)...Australia currently has a covid infection rate 50 times more than of the daily covid infections in RSA.

 

 

Its similar rates analogy for UK/USA/Europe, (weblink) etc

But sure, the vaccine is supposed to save lives, (you are going to say this). But, in NSW Au, recent data shows another real world outcome: 22 of the 34 deaths were in fully vaccinated people. *refer to Table 6-photo below and this  weblink

I hope for everyone who fears covid that the 2nd generation vaccines are better than the current lot. You'll have to wait until sometime in 2023 to find out though.

 

A post from an unapproved source has been reported and removed.

 

20 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

In the lab tests maybe, but in the real world setting; comparing Au. to R-SA where Australia's population, the rate of double vaccinated is 3 X that of RSA and the booster rate is 30 X that of RSA, BUT, (and this goes to your irrelevant/meaningless talking point)...Australia currently has a covid infection rate 50 times more than of the daily covid infections in RSA.

 

Its similar rates analogy for UK/USA/Europe, (weblink) etc

But sure, the vaccine is supposed to save lives, (you are going to say this). But, in NSW Au, recent data shows another real world outcome: 22 of the 34 deaths were in fully vaccinated people. *refer to Table 6-photo below and this  weblink

I hope for everyone who fears covid that the 2nd generation vaccines are better than the current lot. You'll have to wait until sometime in 2023 to find out though.

 

?

?

You are quoting a lot of official figures for NSW and Australia. I don't see any from RSA, apart from your assertions. How do we know these are accurate, and the RSA bureaucracy is on top of the recording of infections?

12 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

know these are accurate,

Burden of proof rests entirely in your hands now, and you can make your prima facia case by proving the data reported by Oxford is inaccurate or false, and until such time you can, you have no basis to dispute it.

27 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Burden of proof rests entirely in your hands now, and you can make your prima facia case by proving the data reported by Oxford is inaccurate or false, and until such time you can, you have no basis to dispute it.

You are showing graphs from John Hopkins University, based in Baltimore, USA. How do they know what the RSA bureaucracy tells them is accurate?

South Africa has had 3.58 million cases, 93,949 deaths. Australia has had 2.13 million cases, 3043 deaths.

South Africa is less than 30% fully vaccinated, Australia is 80%. Draw your own conclusions.

17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

South Africa is less than 30% fully vaccinated, Australia is 80%.

and it has 50 times the covid infection rate of SA. That's it, full stop. Deal with it how u see fit. If you don't like or want to accept the data that's your business.

 

Unless you have some other data sources, and want to share them here, do so.

.

Data sources:

Source weblink

RSA data source weblink

22 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

I know many in Mexico right now. If you're a foreigner and walking around unmasked, you'll be passing many locals off. Show some respect for them.  Mask up and don't spread the virus around.

I wear my mask where it’s required.
The other day I was on a bus, wearing my mask, when I looked around and realized I was one of very few doing so, so I took it off, and nobody gave me any funny looks. 

 

Very few people are wearing masks while walking around outside in the sun. Why would they? 

 

Most of the bigger, more expensive restaurants require you to have a mask on when you enter their building, but obviously you can take it off when you eat. Talk about a pointless exercise, especially in a closed, air conditioned building. That bit is just a joke, and shows that masks have become more of an emotional security blanket or public statement for most people, rather than something they actually attempt to use properly. 

The virus is going to spread regardless of what I do or how many masks I wear. If people don’t want to catch it, they should avoid hanging out in busy areas where people are eating, drinking, and generally having a good time together.

7 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Are you surprised? Conservative governments worldwide traditionally underfund public health, it is one of their favorite targets.

Fortunately for Australia, every time a Liberal ( sic ) government tries to tinker with cost-cutting, it gets a bloody nose from the voters.

It’s no different in my home province of BC, right next door, or in Ontario. I don’t remember either of those provinces having a conservative government in my lifetime. 
Underfunding health care has been a problem in pretty well all of Canada for a long time, regardless of which color we choose to run things for a few years at a time. The taxes never seem to get any lower though. 

15 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, actually not. For one thing, his description implicitly posits that the covid variants were pre-existing in the population all along. Not the case. These are mutations. They are novel. They are new.

Second he claims that it's the vaccines that are responsible for the rise of variants because they inhibit the spread of previous versions of the virus. First off, this does nothing to explain why these variants become dominant in unvaccinated populations which is still most of the world. But even in vaccinated populations what drives the success of these variants is the fact they they are more transmissible than the variants that preceded them. It may be true that in a small, way vaccination helps variants compete by inhibiting other competitors.. But overwhelmingly it boils down to the R factor: transmissibility. The Omicron variant is far more transmissible than any other variant. So naturally it's going to outcompete other variants in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.

The point that he got right and that is fundamental is that selection pressure acts upon existing variation in a population.  The variation has to be there first.

What people tend to muddle is that mutation is random with respect to whether it is favorable or harmful to the survival or reproductive success of the virus..

The process of introducing variation to a population (mutation) has to precede in time the selection process.

 

17 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

and it has 50 times the covid infection rate of SA. That's it, full stop. Deal with it how u see fit. If you don't like or want to accept the data that's your business.

 

Unless you have some other data sources, and want to share them here, do so.

 

Data sources:

Source weblink

RSA data source weblink

It's not a matter of not liking or not wanting to accept the data, I am just puzzled by it. Something does not compute. It defies logic that RSA should have had so many more deaths, and such a low infection rate of the omicron variant compared to Australia. Especially when South Africa was where the omicron variant originated.

17 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

and it has 50 times the covid infection rate of SA. That's it, full stop. Deal with it how u see fit. If you don't like or want to accept the data that's your business.

 

Unless you have some other data sources, and want to share them here, do so.

 

Data sources:

Source weblink

RSA data source weblink

Complete rubbish. You have not even attempted to provide evidence of your claim. There is not a shred of logic or common sense which would dictate that the infection rate of any population is 50 times that of another after adjusting for vaccination rates.

8 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

and it has 50 times the covid infection rate of SA. That's it, full stop. Deal with it how u see fit. If you don't like or want to accept the data that's your business and you can take it elsewhere. Unless you have some other data sources, and want to share them here, do so, if not I am done with you.

Data sources:

Source weblink

RSA data source weblink

The first question that arises when presented with a 50 fold discrepancy in infection rates between two nations is ‘Are both data sets accurate and comparable?’.

 

If you wish to argue that the 50 fold discrepancy in infections has some meaning wrt to vaccination efficacy it is for you to first demonstrate the accuracy and compatibility of the data set and then present the rational for correlating the discrepancy to vaccine efficacy.

 

You’ve done neither.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, cdemundo said:

The point that he got right and that is fundamental is that selection pressure acts upon existing variation in a population.  The variation has to be there first.

What people tend to muddle is that mutation is random with respect to whether it is favorable or harmful to the survival or reproductive success of the virus..

The process of introducing variation to a population (mutation) has to precede in time the selection process.

 

Well, he may have stated a general principle correctly, his contention that the vaccines are responsible for the rise of variants was false. He betrayed an utter lack of understanding. But, on the other hand, a profound depth of misunderstanding.

17 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

and it has 50 times the covid infection rate of SA. That's it, full stop. Deal with it how u see fit. If you don't like or want to accept the data that's your business.

 

Unless you have some other data sources, and want to share them here, do so.

 

Data sources:

Source weblink

RSA data source weblink

Here's another data source from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, one of the world's leading public health research organizations. They clearly don't think much of South Africa's official data:

https://covid19.healthdata.org/south-africa?view=cumulative-deaths&tab=trend

https://www.healthdata.org/

 

As the graph shows, for every death from Covid reported, 2 are not.

You have to be willfully naive not to understand that some countries simply don't have the resources to accurately report on the pandemic. Others suppress data.

On 1/22/2022 at 2:23 PM, Ryan754326 said:

Where I live (Alberta, Canada) there are more vaccinated in hospitals than unvaccinated. I understand that the vaccinated represent a much higher proportion of the population, so this is not unexpected, but at the end of the day it’s still too many, and it doesn’t really take that many to overload the system in the first place. We were overcrowded long before covid came along, and covid disappearing won’t fix that problem. 
 

 

First off, there are lots of people in hospital with Covid but not because of Covid. They are admitted with other illnesses but test positive for infection. The far more important issue is what percentage of unvaxxed patients are in the ICU. Here's what the rates are for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated:

 

Vaccinated hospital patients outpace the unvaccinated, but it doesn't mean the shots don't work: experts

 

"The former tallied 47 in Alberta Thursday. The latter, 18. 

The numbers are just as imbalanced using proper metrics: 5.2 unvaccinated people per 100,000 are in the ICU. That rate drops to 0.4 with two doses."

 

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/vaccinated-hospital-patients-outpace-the-unvaccinated-but-it-doesn-t-mean-the-shots-don-t-work-experts-1.5730793

 

And the actual disparity is probably even greater given that the elderly, who are more vulnerable, are more likely to be vaccinated

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

"The former tallied 47 in Alberta Thursday. The latter, 18. 

The numbers are just as imbalanced using proper metrics: 5.2 unvaccinated people per 100,000 are in the ICU. That rate drops to 0.4 with two doses."

 

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/vaccinated-hospital-patients-outpace-the-unvaccinated-but-it-doesn-t-mean-the-shots-don-t-work-experts-1.5730793

 

And the actual disparity is probably even greater given that the elderly, who are more vulnerable, are more likely to be vaccinated

That article failed to make it absolutely clear about how they determined the rates/100K.  The rate of unvaccinated is give as  5.2/100K. 

 

Is that 100K of the general population ( both vaccinated and unvaccinated) or restricted to 100K from the unvaccinated population? 

 

Since they use the term "proper metrics" I would assume it would be the latter.  Perhaps that's a nit I should have left on the vine.

Just now, gamb00ler said:

That article failed to make it absolutely clear about how they determined the rates/100K.  The rate of unvaccinated is give as  5.2/100K.  Is that 100K of the general population ( both vaccinated and unvaccinated) or restricted to 100K from the unvaccinated population?  Since they use the term "proper metrics" I would assume it would be the latter.

If it were the case that these figures were a percentage of the general population, which is obviously nuts, the case would be even worse for the unvaccinated since they comprise a minority of the population.

 

 

17 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

and it has 50 times the covid infection rate of SA. That's it, full stop. Deal with it how u see fit. If you don't like or want to accept the data that's your business.

 

Unless you have some other data sources, and want to share them here, do so.

 

Data sources:

Source weblink

RSA data source weblink

It's a well known fact (among some, I guess) that the numbers reported are not accurate.  Especially in countries like SA.  Many countries in Africa don't even report numbers.  and the ones that do, admit they are low.  Just like here in Thailand.

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

It's a well known fact (among some, I guess) that the numbers reported are not accurate.  Especially in countries like SA.  Many countries in Africa don't even report numbers.  and the ones that do, admit they are low.  Just like here in Thailand.

Also countries like Russia and Mexico.

A baiting post has been removed

42 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also countries like Russia and Mexico.

Even the US admitted to under counts initially.  They just didn't have enough test kits.

 

Mexico admitted to a big under count.  Russia is a real mess. 

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Even the US admitted to under counts initially.  They just didn't have enough test kits.

 

Mexico admitted to a big under count.  Russia is a real mess. 

There are virtually always going to be some limitations on what a country can clinically report. But it's the degree of inaccuracy that's important. I'm not aware that Mexico admitted to a big undercount. In fact, at first it was vehemently denied. It was only thanks to the sleuthing of some young independent investigators that the massive falsehoods behind the official data was uncovered.

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

You have not even attempted to provide evidence of your claim. There is not a shred of logic or common sense which would dictate that the infection rate of any population is 50 times that of another after adjusting for vaccination rates.

 

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

They clearly don't think much of South Africa's official data:

I am so sorry, for i have erred, the infection rate of Australia is/was actually 52.61 times the covid infection rate in S. Africa (7-day rolling avg) on Jan 17 and has since dropped to about 50 times now. I know you don't like the data, you doubt it's veracity and I would challenge you to prove the data as incorrect. Unless/until

 

4,050/77=52.6

Source: Oxford Data/za

5 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

 

I am so sorry, for i have erred, the infection rate of Australia is/was actually 52.61 times the covid infection rate in S. Africa (7-day rolling avg) on Jan 17 and has since dropped to about 50 times now. I know you don't like the data, you doubt it's veracity and I would challenge you to prove the data as incorrect. Unless/until

 

4,050/77=52.6

Source: Oxford Data/za

 

I don't know why you think that you have successfully responded to the evidence that South Africa's reporting on Covid is seriously defective.

5 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

 

I am so sorry, for i have erred, the infection rate of Australia is/was actually 52.61 times the covid infection rate in S. Africa (7-day rolling avg) on Jan 17 and has since dropped to about 50 times now. I know you don't like the data, you doubt it's veracity and I would challenge you to prove the data as incorrect. Unless/until

 

4,050/77=52.6

Source: Oxford Data/za

It is simply illogical that any country has an infection rate 50 times that of another country given similar vaccination rates. Furthermore, we know that Australia has vastly higher rates of vaccination than does South Africa so that means the infection rate in SA would be meany times higher if the data you provided was weighted for infection rates.

Au has fared better in covid death rates, just not much as of late.

source weblink refer to attached photo.

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It is simply illogical that any country has an infection rate 50 times that of another country given similar vaccination rates. Furthermore, we know that Australia has vastly higher rates of vaccination than does South Africa so that means the infection rate in SA would be meany times higher if the data you provided was weighted for infection rates.

As I said previously, something to this effect:

"If you are looking to help the corona virus infect people, few countries on earth do it better than Australia. They have gone from virtually no COVID cases to a massive increase of cases."

I don't make the covid numbers, data, etc at Oxford World of Data, I am simply the bearer of this data. If you can't accept that then contact Oxford and the ZA government and post the data here and try to refute my numbers professionally and with conviction established and corroborated.