Department head predicts Covid-19 could last up to another year

[ozvenision]

"Covid-19 could be wrangled under control in about 3 months or possibly as little as 1 month"

He must have two dicks as he cant be that silly playing with one!

[gummy]

8 minutes ago, ozvenision said:

"Covid-19 could be wrangled under control in about 3 months or possibly as little as 1 month"

He must have two dicks as he cant be that silly playing with one!

I think one is perhaps jus above his neck perhaps ?

[ExpatPattaya]

Covid 19, like swine flus and avian flus will always be around.   People need a vaccine to protect themselves and others .Very similar to "the flu shot" which took for maybe 20 years annually in the USA.

Not rocket science people

If you want to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from this virus GET THE VACCINE

If Thailand can get 75% or so of the population vaccinated, we can open up everything IMO

[BlueSphinx]

7 minutes ago, ExpatPattaya said:

Covid 19, like swine flus and avian flus will always be around.   People need a vaccine to protect themselves and others .Very similar to "the flu shot" which took for maybe 20 years annually in the USA.

Not rocket science people

If you want to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from this virus GET THE VACCINE

If Thailand can get 75% or so of the population vaccinated, we can open up everything IMO

If you want to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from this virus GET THE VACCINE.  And suffer potential side-effects emerging in the short or long-term from these experimental jabs, when there are proven effective and non-harmful remedies available to treat covid?  And knowing that with a non-compromised immune system you will not only as good as certain 'survive' covid but will have built far superior natural immunization against later covid-infections by variants, than by the vaccine-induced shot.  No, thank you...

[Ttalk]

 

New Public Health England figures - 23rd July

No vaxx:
121,402 cases
165 deaths

Vaxx:
107,816 cases
295 deaths

Jabbed make up:

47% cases
64% deaths

Their case fatality rate is still awful:

Unvaxx = 165 / 121,402 = 0.14% death rate

Vaxx = 295 / 107,816 = 0.27% death rate

See pp18-19:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

 

[HolyCowCm]

Odd how this article seems to omit calling him Doctor in his title. 

[riclag]

If this keeps on mutating we’ll need a surf board to ride the waves!

The gift that keeps on giving 
Thanks CCP

[BlueSphinx]

35 minutes ago, Ttalk said:

New Public Health England figures - 23rd July

No vaxx:
121,402 cases
165 deaths

Vaxx:
107,816 cases
295 deaths

Jabbed make up:

47% cases
64% deaths

Their case fatality rate is still awful:

Unvaxx = 165 / 121,402 = 0.14% death rate

Vaxx = 295 / 107,816 = 0.27% death rate

See pp18-19:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

Thanks, these are very interesting figures (deeply buried on page 18-19 of the official report you provided).

Of course we should also take the number of vaccinated people vs non-vaccinated into consideration. England has a population of roughly 56 million people, of which 39 million received a 1st shot, and roughly 31 million received both shots. > https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

So if we compare the # of cases/deaths over the fully vaccinated (31 million) vs non-vaccinated (17 million) what does that learn us? 

The percentage of cases for the non-vaccinated then adds up to roughly 0.7%, while for the vaxxed it is roughly 0.35%.  So percentage-wise there are double as many unvaxxed covid-cases.

However when looking at deaths within those cases (double for the vaxxed), it seems that the risk of dying from covid is approx same for the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed.  So far for the 'very effective' covid-vaccine...

Looking at these figures and knowing the horrible adverse-effect figures from these covid-vaccines (100% safe - hahaha) since their roll-out 7 months ago, the consistent propaganda to 'get jabbed' seems not to be supported by the 'death from covid' figures.  Or am I missing something?

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, ExpatPattaya said:

Covid 19, like swine flus and avian flus will always be around.   People need a vaccine to protect themselves and others .Very similar to "the flu shot" which took for maybe 20 years annually in the USA.

Not rocket science people

If you want to reduce the risk of severe illness and death from this virus GET THE VACCINE

If Thailand can get 75% or so of the population vaccinated, we can open up everything IMO

I stopped getting the flu shot when I left the military in the early 90s and never cought the flu my wife also refused to get one 

[Stonker]

10 hours ago, Cg66 said:

They need to think outside the box, not copy the mistakes of all the other countries in the world. Vaccinating is the wrong course. Look at the top 15 countries in the world for administering  vaccines and you will see that every single one was accompanied by a surge in cases. Follow India Peru and Mexico with ivermectin. Anyone displaying early symptoms is given a 12 mg tablet, that is all you need, one dose.

Totally and easily verifiable as incorrect on all counts.

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

@Smithydog >

Ivermectin plays a prominent role in the treatment protocols of covid-19 (e.g. the dr MARIK protocol) , no matter the stage - from prophylactic, over first symptoms to hospitalization. 

Attached below two links to websites featuring meta-studies on Ivermectin:

> https://c19early.com/

> https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/

Despite the misleading description of "meta-studies", these are not "meta-studies" nor are they peer-reviewed by any recognised medical authority.

 

Just because they reviewed their own data and published it on a website calling itself "ivmmeta" doesn't make it either true or correct.

 

A ten second search for "ivmmeta" will find countless articles from genuine experts, from the BMJ to the  FDA, to countless independent experts, taking apart the supposed "meta-studies" and showing them all to be fake / false / fraudulent.

 

It's not worth cherry-picking them, or saying anything more.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

I stopped getting the flu shot when I left the military in the early 90s and never cought the flu my wife also refused to get one 

Well, that proves it then.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Or am I missing something?

Yes - rather a lot.

 

Firstly, the other 53 pages of the report which you and @Ttalk have ignored which put the figures in a very different light.

 

Secondly, that @Ttalk has edited the page so that while the figures he shows are correct and not actually fabricated, they don't represent overall "death from Covid" stats but only those for the Delta variant and they don't allow for any other issues such as age and medical conditions.

 

Thirdly, the obvious fact that most of the vaccinated who died were elderly and vulnerable while most of the unvaccinated were young and otherwise healthy.

 

That alone means that your conclusion that "the risk of dying from covid is approx same for the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed" is, to put it more politely than it deserves, incorrect since you're not comparing like with like but comparing those most likely to die from Covid due to age and health, but vaccinated, with those least likely to, but unvaccinated.

 

So ...

2 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Or am I missing something?

Yes, but giving you the credit for a certain amount of intelligence that's what you've chosen to do.

[Donvan]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Totally and easily verifiable as incorrect on all counts.

I agree

[Donvan]

1 hour ago, JohnG said:

About 60% of those in British hospital are un vaccinated. Yes in some higher vaccinated countries there has been an increase in infections, but depending on the vaccine and those without any is where you will find most cases. 

Vaccine is not the be all and end all, but its a good place to start. For Thailand to get a grip on the virus not only do they need to get more people vaccinated but for the countries around Thailand to do the same. 

Let's hope it does not take another year, but it could. 

 We will be very fortunate  if it is only a year

[BlueSphinx]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Despite the misleading description of "meta-studies", these are not "meta-studies" nor are they peer-reviewed by any recognised medical authority.

Just because they reviewed their own data and published it on a website calling itself "ivmmeta" doesn't make it either true or correct.

A ten second search for "ivmmeta" will find countless articles from genuine experts, from the BMJ to the  FDA, to countless independent experts, taking apart the supposed "meta-studies" and showing them all to be fake / false / fraudulent.

It's not worth cherry-picking them, or saying anything more.

Attached two meta-analyses addressing effectivity of Ivermectin for covid-19 treatment.

# Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of_Covid-19 infection _ AJT - june 2021

# Ivermectin_for_COVID-19_infection_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Ivermectin_for_COVID-19_infection_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis.pdf 4095371_Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.Covid-19infection_AJT-june2021.pdf

[BlueSphinx]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Yes - rather a lot.

Firstly, the other 53 pages of the report which you and @Ttalk have ignored which put the figures in a very different light.

> Then please shine that 'other light' on the 53 other pages, and how that affects the conclusions I deducted from the figures.

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Secondly, that @Ttalk has edited the page so that while the figures he shows are correct and not actually fabricated, they don't represent overall "death from Covid" stats but only those for the Delta variant and they don't allow for any other issues such as age and medical conditions.

> Then please provide the data that challenge the conclusions for other variants than the Delta one.

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

... and they don't allow for any other issues such as age and medical conditions.

Thirdly, the obvious fact that most of the vaccinated who died were elderly and vulnerable while most of the unvaccinated were young and otherwise healthy.

> The report does not provide the age/medical conditions of the deaths/cases. 

So please indicate were you found the 'obvious fact' that the vaxxed ones were elderly and vulnerable, while the unvaccinated ones were young and otherwise healthy. 

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

...

That alone means that your conclusion that "the risk of dying from covid is approx same for the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed" is, to put it more politely than it deserves, incorrect since you're not comparing like with like but comparing those most likely to die from Covid due to age and health, but vaccinated, with those least likely to, but unvaccinated.

So ...

Yes, so please do provide the evidence that there is a difference in age/medical conditions between those two groups which would invalidate my conclusion.  I didn't find it in the report, but if you have access to information on that issue, please share.

[BlueSphinx]

2 hours ago, Stonker said:

Totally and easily verifiable as incorrect on all counts.

Everybody needs to provide full peer-reviewed studies and evidence for any claim made re covid, except of course for Stonker Fact-checking Services that relies on a superior form of evidence also known as 'because Stonker says so'. 

[Stonker]

28 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Attached two meta-analyses addressing effectivity of Ivermectin for covid-19 treatment.

# Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of_Covid-19 infection _ AJT - june 2021

# Ivermectin_for_COVID-19_infection_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Ivermectin_for_COVID-19_infection_a_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis.pdf 1.1 MB · 2 downloads 4095371_Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.Covid-19infection_AJT-june2021.pdf 2.62 MB · 1 download

You don't appear to have read them, since your "two meta-analyses" are actually one identical study, just from different two different sources!

 

If you had taken the time to read it you'd have noticed that although it says that there is a possibility that ivermectin may give good results under some circumstances it also says that the studies so far show "low to very low evidence" to support that.

 

Why waste my time, and that of others here, posting links to studies that you obviously haven't read yourself?

[Bangkok_Gary]

Will those medical "experts" on here recommending unproven treatments, please state their credentials and qualifications, university degrees, profession, job title, institution where they work, papers published, etc.

[Stonker]

12 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Everybody needs to provide full peer-reviewed studies and evidence for any claim made re covid, except of course for Stonker Fact-checking Services that relies on a superior form of evidence also known as 'because Stonker says so'. 

No, I rely on reading the studies and the evidence in them rather than what someone else says they say.

 

On reading the one you linked to, for example, it clearly states "to date three other reviews of invermectin use for Covid 19 have been published but only one has been peer reviewed ... both [not peer reviewed] were judged to be of low quality".

 

Maybe if you spent a bit less time flaming those who disagree with you and a bit more time reading your own links you may have something more constructive to offer.

[BlueSphinx]

6 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You don't appear to have read them, since your "two meta-analyses" are actually one identical study, just from different two different sources!

If you had taken the time to read it you'd have noticed that although it says that there is a possibility that ivermectin may give good results under some circumstances it also says that the studies so far show "low to very low evidence" to support that.

Why waste my time, and that of others here, posting links to studies that you obviously haven't read yourself?

Sorry for that, was under the impression that I posted another metastudy.  I mistakenly posted both the preliminary as well as the actually published version of the meta-study on Ivermectin, which I did read by the way. 

The conclusion of the posted meta-study < last paragraph > states:  > Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.

But Stonker Fact-checking Services, seems to read and interpret that concluding statement differently. 

[Rob2010]

4 hours ago, BlueSphinx said:

Looking at these figures and knowing the horrible adverse-effect figures from these covid-vaccines (100% safe - hahaha) since their roll-out 7 months ago, the consistent propaganda to 'get jabbed' seems not to be supported by the 'death from covid' figures.  Or am I missing something?

What non of the figures quoted seem to account for are factors re age and comorbidities which are far and away the biggest risk re serious illness so i cannot see how any of the figures can be considered objectively?

[Stonker]

27 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Then please shine that 'other light' on the 53 other pages, and how that affects the conclusions I deducted from the figures.

If you were genuinely interested you'd have read them yourself, as I did, and seen straightaway that whatever your conclusions the figures you were given and accepted without checking were incorrect as they'd been edited.

31 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Then please provide the data that challenge the conclusions for other variants than the Delta one.

Sorry, you're the one making the claim that your link doesn't support.  It's not for me to waste my time proving the moon's not made of cheese or that Russell's teapot isn't there.

 

39 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

The report does not provide the age/medical conditions of the deaths/cases. 

So please indicate were you found the 'obvious fact' that the vaxxed ones were elderly and vulnerable, while the unvaccinated ones were young and otherwise healthy. 

It's in the NHS eligibility for vaccinations over the period covered, which changed as the eligibility phases changed.

I had thought that would have been obvious, but evidently not.

44 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Yes, so please do provide the evidence that there is a difference in age/medical conditions between those two groups which would invalidate my conclusion.  I didn't find it in the report, but if you have access to information on that issue, please share.

As above - NHS vaccine eligibility over the period of the report and Russell's teapot.

You're the one making these claims, drawing conclusions that are completely unsupported by links which you either haven't read or don't understand as they don't say what you claim, so it's up to you to support them, not up to others to waste their time proving a negative.

 

 

[Stonker]

12 minutes ago, Rob2010 said:

What non of the figures quoted seem to account for are factors re age and comorbidities which are far and away the biggest risk re serious illness so i cannot see how any of the figures can be considered objectively?

I would have thought that would have been obvious, too, @Rob2010, if anyone gave it a moment's thought.

 

Clearly, some didn't - or they just chose to ignore it.