Toggle sidebar

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Part XIII

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Will you get the vaccine?

  • Yes - whichever is available

    Votes: 44 49.4%

  • Yes, - mRNA version

    Votes: 8 9.0%

  • Yes - Vector / Protein

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • No.

    Votes: 25 28.1%

  • Already got it.

    Votes: 7 7.9%
  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting, tennis champion Novak Djokovic recently spoke out against mandatory covid vaccines and shorty after a Serbian model revealed that a person tried to pay her 60K euros to try and set up Novak

https://7news.com.au/sport/tennis/djokovic-opposes-coronavirus-vaccination-c-986354

Serbian model refused to set up Djokovic: They offered me 60,000 euros to seduce and film him

"
"It is true that a guy contacted me. I know him from the city [of London] and I considered him a serious guy," Natalija Scekic said.
"I am familiar with their work and they were good. When he asked me for a date, I thought it was for a business matter. However, as the conversation progressed, I saw that it had nothing to do with my life."

"
The model could not believe the reason for the encounter, even believing that it was a joke.
"I thought it was a hidden camera when he told me that I had to seduce Novak and film it, but not to worry about that because he was already taking care of that," Natalija Scekic continued."
 
JT AM da real deal said:
If US approves AZ then I will take it ... if not then I will stay with Pfizer
Click to expand...

update on US trials
AZD1222 US Phase III trial met primary efficacy endpoint in preventing COVID-19 at interim analysis

some points
The AstraZeneca US Phase III trial of AZD1222 demonstrated statistically significant vaccine efficacy of 79% at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% efficacy at preventing severe disease and hospitalisation.me points from it.
Approximately 20% of participants were 65 years and over, and approximately 60% had co-morbidities associated with an increased risk for progression of severe COVID-19, such as diabetes, severe obesity or cardiac disease.
This AstraZeneca-led US Phase III trial included two doses administered at a four week interval. Previous trials have shown that an extended interval of up to 12 weeks demonstrated greater efficacy, which was also supported by immunogenicity data. This evidence suggests administration of the second dose with an interval longer than four weeks could further increase efficacy and accelerates the number of people who can receive their first dose.

Problem is you can't really choose, if wait for age group might get one of mRNA ones, but probably cannot choose which one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JT AM da real deal
Golden_Jet said:
Actually 22700 deaths, 933000 cases.
Death rate is 2.43 per 100
So 1 in 40 people die, not 100
Click to expand...

Intellivisionhockey said:
Total deaths in Canada between 2019 and 2020 is more or less consistent with trends. We added close to a half a million population between these years.
2019: 284,082
2020: 299,857
Click to expand...

DarenX said:
Actually it's 1 in 41.15

And he said close to 99 percent, 97.57 is pretty close to 99.
Click to expand...

The Infection Fatality Rate of covid-19 as posted by the WHO in a published/peer reviewed paper is .27%. For people under 70 the median IFR is 0.05%.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892.pdf


Findings included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (<118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with >500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.


The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Intellivisionhockey
What was the protest at Queens park yesterday? I can't find anything about it online. Someone on my social media posted pictures of probably hundreds of people there but I couldn't make out any of the signs. Im assuming anti lockdown group?
 
IPS said:
The people who think this is ok are probably the ones who are saying covid has a death rate of 1 in 40 people.
Click to expand...



Thought that was interesting. Clearly the media hasn’t done a good job of educating people about the virus. I wonder what a similar study would look like here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Intellivisionhockey
IPS said:
The Infection Fatality Rate of covid-19 as posted by the WHO in a published/peer reviewed paper is .27%. For people under 70 the median IFR is 0.05%.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892.pdf


Findings included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (<118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with >500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.


The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data​
Click to expand...

Thanks, it was released in September 2020, but the data is collected from April to June of 2020, so it’s pretty old sample, but interesting read.
 
Future said:


Thought that was interesting. Clearly the media hasn’t done a good job of educating people about the virus. I wonder what a similar study would look like here.
Click to expand...


I would of voted zero, if using the word “must”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ULF_55
Golden_Jet said:
Thanks, it was released in September 2020, but the data is collected from April to June of 2020, so it’s pretty old sample, but interesting read.
Click to expand...
It's literally on the WHO's website. They wouldn't have it on there if they weren't confident in the assertions the study made.
 
IPS said:
It's literally on the WHO's website. They wouldn't have it on there if they weren't confident in the assertions the study made.
Click to expand...

I’m aware, I read it. I just said the data is 8-9 months old.
 
IPS said:
The Infection Fatality Rate of covid-19 as posted by the WHO in a published/peer reviewed paper is .27%. For people under 70 the median IFR is 0.05%.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892.pdf


Findings included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (<118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118–500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with >500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.


The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data​
Click to expand...

Don't group me up in this. I was merely pointing out how his stat was also of by a couple.

That info has been available a year ago, you just had to do a bit of math on your own using the official numbers.

I will say this, I have no side. I equally dislike the people who use specific stats to push an agenda. Good or bad. Specifically the Facebook ppl who share shit without any fact checking, both sides.
 
IPS said:
What a shame we can't discuss the bigger agenda at play without being labelled as a "conspiracy theorist" or "tin foil hatter". This country is taking a disturbing turn for the worse.
Click to expand...


Please discuss, would love to hear what the bigger agenda is?
At the end of the day, common sense will prevail and your assumptions debunked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pink Mist
GoonieFace said:
It doesn’t, but if everyone there is vaccinated, it doesnt matter anyway. It’s a way of essentially forcing people to get it if they want to attend an event there
Click to expand...

but someone who doesn’t have the vaccine but has a negative test is still around people who have been vaccinated without a negative test. Ergo spread will still happen.

just dumb lol.

Im all for rapid tests, just hope they can figure something that doesn’t have to tickle my brain to do it
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTotalPackage
Muston Atthews said:
but someone who doesn’t have the vaccine but has a negative test is still around people who have been vaccinated without a negative test. Ergo spread will still happen.

just dumb lol.

Im all for rapid tests, just hope they can figure something that doesn’t have to tickle my brain to do it
Click to expand...

I know, it’s just nonsense. Essentially they are trying to force people to get vaccinated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTotalPackage
Oilers/Habs game postponed due to Covid protocal. I'm amazed we lasted this long until the 1st postponement
 
IPS said:
What a shame we can't discuss the bigger agenda at play without being labelled as a "conspiracy theorist" or "tin foil hatter". This country is taking a disturbing turn for the worse.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not just our country that's taking a turn for the worse in that regard. It's happening all over the world.

We're entering a new global paradigm, and I'm just thankful that I lived the first 40 plus years of my life before this pandemic took hold. It sucks for our kids though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Hanging Jowl and TheTotalPackage
IPS said:
What a shame we can't discuss the bigger agenda at play without being labelled as a "conspiracy theorist" or "tin foil hatter". This country is taking a disturbing turn for the worse.
Click to expand...

To be honest I haven't noticed any of that.

Perhaps I just live in my own world, doing what I want, and say excuse me when required.
 
Last edited:
April 1st. Alberta will be taking another step in the vaccination process.

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/topics/Page17389.aspx#eligibility

Group B
Albertans between 1957 and 2005 with any one of the following high-risk underlying health conditions:
conditions listed
A doctor’s or pharmacist’s note is not required to get the vaccine. However, you may want to talk to your doctor or pharmacist to help them understand if your condition is on this list.
*** certainly some people will lie ***

Group C
  • Residents and support staff at eligible congregate living settings: correctional facilities, homeless shelters, meatpacking plants, group homes including disability, mental health and other types of licensed supportive living.
  • Healthcare workers working in patient care facilities or providing direct patient care in the community, in order to limit spread to high risk individuals.
    • This includes physicians, nurses, pharmacists, dentists and all other healthcare professionals and their office or support staff.
    • Anyone working in patient care facilities or providing services directly to clients in the community for Alberta Health Services, Covenant Health, Alberta Precision Labs, DynaLife, and students undertaking placement practicums in clinical areas.
    • Healthcare workers on First Nation reserves.
  • Caregivers of Albertans who are most at risk of severe outcomes.
    • All designated family support people of those individuals in long term care (LTC), designated supportive living (DSL) and licensed supportive living facilities.
    • Up to two caregivers for children under 16 who have an eligible chronic condition but are unable to receive vaccine due to age.
Group D
  • Albertans born in 1957-1971
  • First Nations and Métis people born in 1972-1986, no matter where they live
Work to identify sequencing for all other groups is underway.
Phase 3: Spring/Early Summer 2021
  • Anticipated start of roll-out to the general public
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom