Carantoc said..

Mr Milk said..

...only 3.2 percent of fully vaccinated individuals who tested positive for coronavirus were hospitalised, just 0.05 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.25 per cent were placed on a ventilator.
Among the unvaccinated who caught COVID, 7.5 per cent were hospitalised, 1.5 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.5 per cent required breathing support with a mechanical ventilator.

Might have to explain those stats a bit more if you could -

0.05% of vaccinated who got Covid sent to ICU, but 0.25% on a ventilator. So this is people on ventilators but outside of ICU ???

Or is it 0.25% of the 0.05% ?

In which case of the non-vaccinated ventilator was required for 0.25% of 0.5% of 7.5% of covid cases = 0.000094%. Seems a pretty small number that way.

I didn't write it but I don't think the percentages should be multiplied. I would say that it means that if you are vaccinated you have a one in 30 chance of being hospitalised. I agree when you think about it the next couple of numbers look a bit dodgy, but they could be due to a misplaced decimal point. That would mean one in 200 vaccinated people end up in an ICU and half of them need ventilation.

Mr Milk said..

Carantoc said..

Mr Milk said..

...only 3.2 percent of fully vaccinated individuals who tested positive for coronavirus were hospitalised, just 0.05 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.25 per cent were placed on a ventilator.
Among the unvaccinated who caught COVID, 7.5 per cent were hospitalised, 1.5 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.5 per cent required breathing support with a mechanical ventilator.

Might have to explain those stats a bit more if you could -

0.05% of vaccinated who got Covid sent to ICU, but 0.25% on a ventilator. So this is people on ventilators but outside of ICU ???

Or is it 0.25% of the 0.05% ?

In which case of the non-vaccinated ventilator was required for 0.25% of 0.5% of 7.5% of covid cases = 0.000094%. Seems a pretty small number that way.

I didn't write it but I don't think the percentages should be multiplied. I would say that it means that if you are vaccinated you have a one in 30 chance of being hospitalised. I agree when you think about it the next couple of numbers look a bit dodgy, but they could be due to a misplaced decimal point. That would mean one in 200 vaccinated people end up in an ICU and half of them need ventilation.

Does that really sound right though?

1 in 30 is saying 3.33% of new cases would be hospitalized.
Today NSW had 919 new cases so far, that's 300 odd people getting hospitalized just today so far.
Yesterday NSW had 755 = 251 hospitalized
The day before, 818 = 272 hospitalized
and so on going back...

Is NSW really seeing that many people being hospitalized every day for the past month, give or take.
You'd think their hospitals wouldn't have any capacity left.

And this is accounting for 'vaccinated' people, whereas we know the numbers above would be larger due to low jabbed rates...


Edit: as friendly Mr airheadsail pointed out below, my maths was slightly incorrect for missing out a decimal place.
Sometimes it's hard to concentrate during the constant waterboarding.

kiterboy said..

Mr Milk said..

Carantoc said..

Mr Milk said..

...only 3.2 percent of fully vaccinated individuals who tested positive for coronavirus were hospitalised, just 0.05 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.25 per cent were placed on a ventilator.
Among the unvaccinated who caught COVID, 7.5 per cent were hospitalised, 1.5 per cent were admitted to an intensive care unit and 0.5 per cent required breathing support with a mechanical ventilator.

Might have to explain those stats a bit more if you could -

0.05% of vaccinated who got Covid sent to ICU, but 0.25% on a ventilator. So this is people on ventilators but outside of ICU ???

Or is it 0.25% of the 0.05% ?

In which case of the non-vaccinated ventilator was required for 0.25% of 0.5% of 7.5% of covid cases = 0.000094%. Seems a pretty small number that way.

I didn't write it but I don't think the percentages should be multiplied. I would say that it means that if you are vaccinated you have a one in 30 chance of being hospitalised. I agree when you think about it the next couple of numbers look a bit dodgy, but they could be due to a misplaced decimal point. That would mean one in 200 vaccinated people end up in an ICU and half of them need ventilation.

Does that really sound right though?

1 in 30 is saying 3.33% of new cases would be hospitalized.
Today NSW had 919 new cases so far, that's 300 odd people getting hospitalized just today so far.
Yesterday NSW had 755 = 251 hospitalized
The day before, 818 = 272 hospitalized
and so on going back...

Is NSW really seeing that many people being hospitalized every day for the past month, give or take.
You'd think their hospitals wouldn't have any capacity left.

And this is accounting for 'vaccinated' people, whereas we know the numbers above would be larger due to low jabbed rates...

3.33% of 919 cases is 30.6 people in hospital, not 300. Did you go to school?

kiterboy said..
While we're on numbers...can anyone make sense of these numbers?

Aus has a total of 46 725 confirmed cases.

Recoveries = 27 969
Active = 13 129
Deaths = 986

These three stats only add up to 42 084. That's a shortfall of 4 641 cases.

I assume that hospitalized and ICU would be part of the 'active' cases, but even if you add them on, it's still a shortfall.
Any ideas where the missing cases are accounted?

I think you've found evidence of corruption. Or maybe an artefact of the way the stats are compiled

Do your own research!

Look at the source data. It's probably spreadsheets and if you inspect carefully you might find an input error or several

eppo said..
Alongside this should be education on how to improve and strengthen your natural immune system as well.

This is a genuine question, but is there any scientific evidence or studies on 'strengthening your immune system'?

I have always assumed that its a 'new-age' health thing extoled by people that want to sell supplements or convert you to eating kale juice smoothies.

I still think it probably is, as your immune system does what it does and I am not sure you can improve it or let it waste away either.

Any scientific resources that suggest how this can be improved or is it what I expect and just a pile of people telling you that you can do it?

kiterboy said..
Please, tell me more...how so?

I'd assume it is because positive test case numbers, deaths, people in ICU and in hospital are fairly easy to track and record - but "recovered" and "active" aren't. I'd suggest it is probably who tested positive but haven't followed up with whatever reporting requirements there are to count "recovered".


On another note 30 millions tests to 47,000 cases is 1 positive for every 650 tests (assuming my decimals are right).

I assume people aren't getting tested for the pleasure of the test, but because they generally have some reason to - maybe close contact or in venue of concern or something.

So 1 positive in 650 people with some form of higher risk exposure doesn't really sound like the most highly transmissible disease some media reports seem to make out it is.

Just a few days ago Saint Dan of Victoria said something along the lines of "if you step outside of your house you will likely catch it and die, so stay indoors".

But it the data seems to suggest you have a 1 in 650 chance of contracting it even if you are in some higher infection risk zone. And then a 7.5% chance after that of needing hospital treatment.

I dunno, but it wouldn't surprise me if that is better odds than passive smoking or catching an infection whilst in hospital for some other reason.

^^^ agreed. There has been not one single case in my town of 30,000 nor have we had any lockdown. COVID non-event.
But my work requires vacc now ........its hard for us sex workers you get everything that's going around...

FormulaNova said..

eppo said..
Alongside this should be education on how to improve and strengthen your natural immune system as well.

This is a genuine question, but is there any scientific evidence or studies on 'strengthening your immune system'?

I have always assumed that its a 'new-age' health thing extoled by people that want to sell supplements or convert you to eating kale juice smoothies.

I still think it probably is, as your immune system does what it does and I am not sure you can improve it or let it waste away either.

Any scientific resources that suggest how this can be improved or is it what I expect and just a pile of people telling you that you can do it?

There's papers.
Eppo's got a good book on the subject.
Maybe start by balancing omega-6 with Omega-3.

Ensure a balanced intake of essential micronutrients.

It's not just diet, exercise helps

There's more. Much more.

Mr Milk said..
Do your own research!

Look at the source data. It's probably spreadsheets and if you inspect carefully you might find an input error or several

Oh. So you've got no idea. Why didn't you just say that?

Mark _australia said..
Just had the first Pfizer dose.
I can definitely feel the Government reading my thoughts more now.

Hey, down here we are just getting a blank page. You aren't just staring at the wall again are you?

FormulaNova said.. Hey, down here we are just getting a blank page. You aren't just staring at the wall again are you?

^^ that is the only way to stop them.

Just some of the Ivermectin side effects,

eyelid edema, anterior uveitis, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, limbitis, punctate opacity, keratitis, abnormal sensation in the eyes, and chorioretinitis/choroiditis

Loss of vision has occurred

Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, somnolence, vertigo, and tremor. Serious or fatal encephalopathy has been reported rarely in patients

Seizures have been reported during postmarketing experience.

Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention.

Other side effects have included asthenia, fatigue, abdominal pain, chest discomfort, facial edema, and peripheral edema.

Hepatic side effects have included elevated ALT and/or AST. Elevated liver enzymes, elevated bilirubin, and hepatitis have been reported during postmarketing experience

Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. EKG changes, including prolonged PR interval, flattened T waves and peaked T waves,

Dermatologic side effects have included pruritus, rash, and urticaria. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported during postmarketing experience.

Respiratory side effects have included worsening bronchial asthma, laryngeal edema, and dyspnea.






WOW, no wonder the poison hot line has been ringing off the hook with people thinking they are doctors using google.

japie said..

lotofwind said..
Just some of the Ivermectin side effects,

eyelid edema, anterior uveitis, blurred vision, conjunctivitis, limbitis, punctate opacity, keratitis, abnormal sensation in the eyes, and chorioretinitis/choroiditis

Loss of vision has occurred

Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, somnolence, vertigo, and tremor. Serious or fatal encephalopathy has been reported rarely in patients

Seizures have been reported during postmarketing experience.

Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention.

Other side effects have included asthenia, fatigue, abdominal pain, chest discomfort, facial edema, and peripheral edema.

Hepatic side effects have included elevated ALT and/or AST. Elevated liver enzymes, elevated bilirubin, and hepatitis have been reported during postmarketing experience

Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. EKG changes, including prolonged PR interval, flattened T waves and peaked T waves,

Dermatologic side effects have included pruritus, rash, and urticaria. Toxic epidermal necrolysis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported during postmarketing experience.

Respiratory side effects have included worsening bronchial asthma, laryngeal edema, and dyspnea.






WOW, no wonder the poison hot line has been ringing off the hook with people thinking they are doctors using google.

Nice try Idiotwind

* Conditions Of Excess Stomach Acid Secretion
* Irritation Of The Stomach Or Intestines
* Nausea
* Vomiting
* A Type Of Blood Disorder Where The Red Blood Cells Burst Called Hemolytic Anemia
* Anemia
* A Decrease In Platelet Clotting
* Large Purple Or Brown Skin Blotches
*
* Decreased Blood Platelets
* Low Levels Of White Blood Cells
* Bleeding Within The Skull
* Bleeding
* Bronchospasm
* Stomach Or Intestinal Ulcer
* Blood Coming From Anus
* Damage To The Liver And Inflammation
* Bleeding Of The Stomach Or Intestines
* A Type Of Kidney Inflammation Called Interstitial Nephritis
* Inflammation Of The Skin Due To An Allergy
* Hives
* Blistering Of The Skin
* Seizures
* Wheezing
* Trouble Breathing
* A Significant Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Anaphylaxis
* A Type Of Allergic Reaction Called Angioedema
* A Rupture In The Wall Of The Stomach Or Intestine
* A Type Of Significant Allergic Skin Reaction Called DRESS Syndrome
* Bruising Under The Skin
* Bleeding Gums
* A Type Of Stomach Irritation Called Gastritis
* Indigestion
* Decreased Appetite
* Nosebleed
* Abnormal Liver Function Tests
* Hematoma, A Collection Of Blood Outside Of The Blood Vessels

All of the above are listed as side effects of Aspirin.

Wow! Any wonder there's anyone still alive on the planet today!

If you have written that up under the heading of 'Astrazenica' or "Pfizer", people here would be jumping over themselves to tell us how risky it all is.

To be fair though it would be important to find significant side effects for any new medication. We know aspirin, but what if 'liver function test' problems were severe with Ivermectin?