nCoV 2019

[smudge]

If you go back a further week from his 25/12 NSW prediction, the chart changes and looks like NZ's currently. Huge upward spike with no ceiling. The algorithm doesn't have enough data to be able to make a call on when it would level out. I'd guess in a week it will.

Back then I was thinking NSW would follow the UK, which was just starting to show signs of leveling out, as predicted by the SA data. I can't see why NZ wouldnt follow the same pattern as anywhere else.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by smudge

Chris Billington's predictions have been incredibly accurate in NSW.

His chart for us on Xmas day had us peaking in the middle of Jan: https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus...h_daily_cases/

We peaked on the 15th.

Interesting, I did read somewhere NZ was meant to peak sometime in February. Only a few cases of Omicron so far, but it only takes a few for things to blow up anyway.

[blynk]

So in the last few days I have heard the new anti slogan.
"Close contacts have to isolate for 24 days".

When a friend first said that to me, I thought, that seems a bit extreme. Surely 24 days is a long time for a close contact.
Did some research, found its pretty BS. Then kept hearing it get repeated.

It went along with the one last week of "Jacinda doesn't care about locking down the country, she got her wedding"

[smudge]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Interesting, I did read somewhere NZ was meant to peak sometime in February. Only a few cases of Omicron so far, but it only takes a few for things to blow up anyway.

Looks today he has you peaking around the 10th of March. Think its going to be a fairly rough feb for you guys.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by The Edge

I hope that's wrong, but I guess we'll have to see..

126 new today. Right on schedule.

[_Incubus_]

Originally Posted by blynk

So in the last few days I have heard the new anti slogan.
"Close contacts have to isolate for 24 days".

When a friend first said that to me, I thought, that seems a bit extreme. Surely 24 days is a long time for a close contact.
Did some research, found its pretty BS. Then kept hearing it get repeated.

It went along with the one last week of "Jacinda doesn't care about locking down the country, she got her wedding"

24 days is just insane for a close contact to isolate....wtf is going on in NZ???? Where the heck is that advice coming from??? You're better off getting covid and only doing 14 days FFS

[Ab]

I think the point is: in the absence of clear information from the Ministry of Health, people are filling the void with made up shit they heard from this chick in a Whatsapp group.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

24 days is just insane for a close contact to isolate....wtf is going on in NZ???? Where the heck is that advice coming from??? You're better off getting covid and only doing 14 days FFS

Or just don't get tested.

[StN]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Or just don't get tested.

The Section 70 notice, section 3 dated 24-Mar-2020 makes it clear that close contacts are required to get tested.

Advocating not getting tested for a notifiable disease as defined in the Health Act 1956 under section 74 schedule 1 is about intelligent as Trump saying the way to keep numbers down is to not get tested.

[DrTiTus]

Donald Duck, phone number 222 2222 is going to get in a lot of trouble when he doesn't report.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

oh lawd he comin

Took me until a monumental bowel movement to realise this is a quote from Mother Abigail...

[blynk]

Originally Posted by StN

The Section 70 notice, section 3 dated 24-Mar-2020 makes it clear that close contacts are required to get tested.

Advocating not getting tested for a notifiable disease as defined in the Health Act 1956 under section 74 schedule 1 is about intelligent as Trump saying the way to keep numbers down is to not get tested.

Close contacts sure, but if you are feeling unwell without being flagged as a close contact then you don't get tested.

There isn't missing data for this.
Some how people have decided that someone with covid has to isolate for 14 days, and then adding the 10 days on top of that for close contact.
The logic isn't really there.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by _Incubus_

24 days is just insane for a close contact to isolate....wtf is going on in NZ???? Where the heck is that advice coming from??? You're better off getting covid and only doing 14 days FFS

To be fair, if it turns out you've got covid, you have to stay in isolation until you beat it, or it beats you. That could be longer than 14 days in some cases.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Nothing

To be fair, if it turns out you've got covid, you have to stay in isolation until you beat it, or it beats you. That could be longer than 14 days in some cases.

LOL: Aussie (At least Vic) is:

Originally Posted by Department of Health SMS

Dear [crocos],

You have tested positive for
COVID-19.
[...]
2. You must immediately isolate at home for 7 days from the date of your first positive test. You can leave isolation on 08/02/2022.
[...]

And from reading the DHHS website and talking to the nurses from the phone calls, it's "yep, 7 days, good to go, no testing, nothing about continuing symptoms, you're done"

[DrTiTus]

Why are you mowing the lawn at this time of the morning StN?

[Ab]

Meanwhile, Australia has well and truly lost its mind.

https://apple.news/AtLP2QGdtTXyz456vvRByWQ

[DrTiTus]

No idea what that says, I'm not subscribing to Apple News. Can you post the executive summary?

[Ab]

copy:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/craig-ke...6-62581736627e

[Ab]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Interesting, I did read somewhere NZ was meant to peak sometime in February. Only a few cases of Omicron so far, but it only takes a few for things to blow up anyway.

Nek minit

NZ Covid outbreak ‘like nothing we’ve experienced’, Ardern says, as cases skyrocket
Virus-free for much of the pandemic, New Zealand is now reporting near-daily record cases

[DrTiTus]

Team Purple clearly needs to do some catch up. How can we overwhelm a health system at this rate? Let's hope these super spreaders in Parliament can do us a solid.

[fixed_truth]

Do you need this to be explained to you AGAIN?

https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-...ations-details

[DrTiTus]

Dude you say it like cases increasing in the same proportions as the populations indicates the vaccine actually DOES something.

If 90% are vaccinated, and 90% of cases are with the vaccinated, then it doesn't do shit.

I'd want to see something like 10% of cases in the vaccinated, and 90% in the unvaxxed to be confident it's worth taking at all. Otherwise what's the point?

Don't give me that "I'm so glad I was vaccinated because it would have been so much worse otherwise" skidmark line, you're not fucking 80 with diabetes. Your body coped because thats what your body does. It has nothing to do with the vaccine.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Do you need this to be explained to you AGAIN?

https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-...ations-details

Why produce evidence for someone so indifferent to it? They've got their story, one in which they're conveniently the hero, they're not interested.

[sidbo]

You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday — no matter what happened Tuesday

- Voltaire






















Yes yes yes, I know it's not Voltaire

[blynk]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Team Purple clearly needs to do some catch up. How can we overwhelm a health system at this rate? Let's hope these super spreaders in Parliament can do us a solid.

If you would like to share the data table behind that, I'm sure there are probably a dozen people here who will explain how statistics works.

Some can probably also talk about bias in the data and how someone that is antivax is also less likely to go get tested.

[DrTiTus]

Yeah, there must be a way we can explain why the vaccinated are still getting sick. Surely we can't have been duped? A big corporation - with profits to be made, known to have acted fraudulently in the past - couldn't possibly have sold us a dud vaccine.

It must be a problem with the numbers. I'll go back and recheck, you've made a very good point.

[Ab]

Even though one of these boys was vaccinated, they BOTH still contracted smallpox in 1901.

Yeah, there must be a way we can explain why the vaccinated kid still caught smallpox. Surely he can't have been duped? It must be a problem with the numbers.

[Cyberbob]

I wanna believe this. This doesn't mesh with reality. So don't change my view, change reality.

Remember the flat earth doco Behind The Curve.

At the end, one of the believers sets up an experiment, where he shines a light through a series of holes, miles apart, to prove the earth was flat.

He's unable to see his light the further out from the source he goes. Get's his friend to lift the light up, compensating for the curvature of the earth, and there it is, the light.

His conclusion is something like "Interesting, that's not what I expected. Something must be wrong, I'll need to try something else."



Yea, that.

[DrTiTus]

Except this is neither polio, nor is it flat Earth.

If the polio vaccine was as effective as this Pfizer one, the boy on the right would also be covered in the pox, and thanking Pfizer that he's covered in pox but not dead, just like his unvaccinated mate. He will tell his mate that surely he would have died had he not taken the vaccine. When pressed as to how he can come to this nonsense conclusion, he would offer to explain how statistics work.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Yeah, there must be a way we can explain why the vaccinated are still getting sick. Surely we can't have been duped? A big corporation - with profits to be made, known to have acted fraudulently in the past - couldn't possibly have sold us a dud vaccine.

It must be a problem with the numbers. I'll go back and recheck, you've made a very good point.

Still waiting for the dataset. I had a quick browse on the Covid site. Cant see the daily breakdown by vax status.
Can only see cases to date.
Which tells me the unvax are 5 times more likely to test positive, and some similar (or worse) for hospitalisations.

Happy to be proven wrong when you supply the data.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Except this is neither polio, nor is it flat Earth.

This really is a quasi-religious thing for you, isn't it?

[DrTiTus]

If I'm honest, I don't even know what you mean by that.

[Ab]

You have faith that what you believe is true, even though there is overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. When observations contradict your belief, that is proof that the observations are flawed.

[DrTiTus]

If you think that the vaccine is "working", you've obviously set a really low bar for what "working" actually means.

If it means that most people who take it won't die, sure, it's doing its job.
But most people who DON'T take it won't die either.

Let's ignore the vaccine deaths, they're dead now, end of story.

If I was on Dragon's Den, and you showed me all the data we currently have available and told me this was your vaccine, I would not invest. I'd say come back when it stops infection and transmission so that it can stop a pandemic.

This is a pandemic of a contagious thing. To stop the pandemic we need to prevent either transmission: to make it not contagious, or infection: so that our body won't become a host. The vaccine doesn't do either.

So confident are we of the vaccine's efficacy, we are literally separating people and even that's not helping - the cases are predominantly among vaccinated people. That's not statistics, that's failure.

Somehow, our collective standards have been reduced to "we're just happy the Government lets us leave our houses and visit people we know and still have a job and get a haircut".

Anyone with symptoms, including a runny nose, headache, fatigue, sneezing or a sore throat, should isolate and arrange to be tested.

We used to call that "a cold" or "the flu".

Now it's "a pandemic" that has gone on for 2 years and we need to give the Government emergency powers and lock us in our homes and spend billions in case an old person with health problems dies? People need to lose their jobs if they don't take a vaccine against a contagious thing that allows the spread of a contagious thing?

Why do we have to use statistics - notorious for being misused and distorting numbers - to explain away why we still have a pandemic when we have vaccination rates that used to give us "herd immunity". I haven't heard that word for months. It seems to have gone in the memory hole. And if we're never going to reach herd immunity, why are we still pushing vaccines that do sweet fuck all for most people?

You're a smart guy, help me out here: which dots have I not connected? What am I missing here? Which part have I got wrong? Have people become soft? Is it an OSH thing? Is everyone convinced they are going to die?

[Lightspeed]

So what Ab said.

[MadMax]

I fucking hate headaches.
The vaccines give me a couple of days headaches each.
I’d much prefer that that a week or four or worse of a headache should I get infected.

That alone - the possibility that the vaccines will possibly reduce what for me will be a nasty headache - is reason enough for me to get the jabs.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

...

Why do we use statistics, because humans attempt to see things that are not there.
"I had covid and was fine, therefore everyone else will be fine too"
"I know someone who had a heart attack after they got the vax. Vax gives you heart attacks"

So Im still waiting for your data, so I can show you how you are looking at a skewed view.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

Except this is neither polio, nor is it flat Earth.

It never was about polio or flat earth, and to think it was is ignoring the point entirely, either intentionally or not.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

If you think that the vaccine is "working", you've obviously set a really low bar for what "working" actually means.

If it means that most people who take it won't die, sure, it's doing its job.
But most people who DON'T take it won't die either.

Ballistic vests. Most people who wear one won't die of a gunshot.
But most people who DONT wear ballistic vests won't die of a gunshot either.

Therefore.. ballistic vests are useless and no one should ever use one.

Throw whatever analogy you want at it, the logic is flawed.

Getting it yet?

[_indigo1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_znElks13UA