Daily review 27/12/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, December 27th, 2021 - 21 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

21 comments on “Daily review 27/12/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gezza 1
    27 December 2021 at 6:39 pm

    “Controversial Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki is under investigation after he allegedly threatened to have future mobile vaccination clinics blown up to prevent children getting their Covid-19 jab at schools.

    The Herald has learned that Tamaki made the alleged threat during a sermon he gave to a Destiny Church congregation yesterday. That sermon was later posted on the Destiny Church website.

    In the sermon, Tamaki referenced the upcoming vaccination rollout for 5-to-11-year-olds, set to begin in January, saying, “they want to touch our children, they’re coming after our kids”. Later, Tamaki said he would “go to the school” and “fight for them”.

    “I’ll stand down there and I’ll take that school apart. If you go in there with your wagon, I’ll tow your wagon away and I’ll get the boys to blow it up and all your syringes, we’ll run you out of town.”

    The Herald understands police were alerted to the issue after someone reported Tamaki to Crimestoppers.
    …
    A police spokesperson told the Herald officers were “assessing information we have received” and could not comment further.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/destiny-churchs-brian-tamaki-allegedly-threatens-to-have-future-mobile-vaccination-clinics-blown-up-police-investigating/PTPTYKN7YSZO3EUEGXIHUB2UPU/
    … … … …

    Hope they can charge this bloody charlatan with something. 😡

  2. Bill 2
    27 December 2021 at 8:36 pm

    In an as yet to be peer reviewed update to a previously published and peer reviewed paper on myocarditis, the researchers stratified their findings (ie – broke the numbers down into age groups and sex).

    Anyway. A total of 28 events of myocarditis followed injections of Pfizer in men under the age of 40. That compared to only 7 events in men under the age of 40 following a positive Covid test.

    That's 28 v 7. The injection is "safe and effective" we've been told and the chances of getting myocardititis is greater after contracting Covid than after being injected with Pfizer. Like much else in the official Covid narrative, it would appear we can add that to the "seems not" ledger.

    Given that ratio, why is the government insisting that men under 40 get injected, given that the chances of Covid occasioning their death is less than 0.05% if they are otherwise healthy?

    Here's the original study and the follow up.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v1.full.pdf

    • McFlock 2.1
      27 December 2021 at 9:40 pm

      Maybe because myocarditis isn't the only symptom of covid19?

      heck, your 0.05% equates to (and please correct my math if it's wrong) 500 deaths per million, which seems to be well in excess of the rates shown in the charts of your links.

      • Bill 2.1.1
        28 December 2021 at 12:17 pm

        Wow! Myocarditis isn't the only symptom of Covid? Who'da thunk it McFlock.

        Here's the thing. My comment is a reference to the messaging that urged people with reservations around myocarditis to get injected because they had more chance of getting myocarditis from Covid than from a shot m-RNA.

        If that study stands up to peer review (and it probably will seeing as how it's an update rather than a new study), then the line about myocarditis was a lie.

        As for those other effects of Covid – well, "everyone's" going to get Covid whether injected with m- RNA or not…and a risk/benefit analysis that would go toward any individual’s informed consent requires honest information.

        If you object to the 0.05% fatality rate for under 75 years of age, then take it to the peer reviewed study (disseminated by WHO and published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation) by John Ioannidis where the number comes from.

        • Poission 2.1.1.1
          28 December 2021 at 12:48 pm

          If you object to the 0.05% fatality rate for under 75 years of age, then take it to the peer reviewed study (disseminated by WHO and published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation) by John Ioannidis where the number comes from.

          The great debate between Ioannidis and Nassim Taleb,showed the former was prone to error and his forecasting methodology was not even wrong ( albeit on limited data ie testing)

          “If I were to make an informed estimate based on the limited testing data we have, I would say that covid-19 will result in fewer than 40,000 deaths this season in the USA,”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-mass-testing-were-flying-blind-through-this-crisis/2020/04/09/bf61e178-7a9b-11ea-a130-df573469f094_story.html

          Summary on the great debate and links here.

          https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/06/17/some-forecasting-for-covid-19-has-failed-a-discussion-of-taleb-and-ioannidis-et-al/

          ”

          • RedLogix 2.1.1.1.1
            28 December 2021 at 1:18 pm

            Model predictions are inherently troublesome to evaluate in hindsight. They’re always going to be ‘wrong’ one way or another. From one of the comments:

            There’s been a long list of critics arguing that the early pandemic forecasts in many countries were horribly wrong because some countries (like Australia or NZ) didn’t experience terrible outbreaks despite early forecasts saying they would. But this criticism is rather like saying that your doctor advised you to wear a seatbelt or you might die in a car crash – but then saying that since you wore your seatbelt and didn’t crash the doctor’s advice was worthless. That’s clearly a false statement, and doesn’t invalidate the policy recommendation, though clearly it makes testing the accuracy of the forecast after the fact near impossible because we can’t observe a “no policy change” actual outcome.

            Nonetheless the claim in question is the one Bill is making here – the global IFR for those under the age of 75. I'd be genuinely interested in your view.

            • Poission 2.1.1.1.1.1
              28 December 2021 at 7:03 pm

              Ioannidis uses < 70

              About 10% of the global population may be infected by October 2020. Global infection fatality rate is 0.15‐0.20% (0.03‐0.04% in those <70 years), with large variability across locations with different age‐structure, institutionalization rates, socioeconomic inequalities, population‐level clinical risk profile, public health measures, and health care

              Here in NZ the IFA is an order of magnitude lower across all age groups ,due to lower case numbers,high vaccination rates and non pharmaceutical social controls

          • Bill 2.1.1.1.2
            28 December 2021 at 2:15 pm

            Ioannidis estimated the "Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data"

            The piece you linked is a completely different matter, and comes from a request to predict or forecast deaths from some months prior. Rather ridiculously, the piece reads as a defense of Ferguson and his team of 'busted flushes' at Imperial College, London.

            Currently, the CDC has recorded something like 800 000 Covid deaths while only quietly acknowledging 95% of those had co-morbidities that numbered an average of 4 per person.

            In other words, the number of people dying only from Covid is about 40 000 in the USA to date. That's not to say that Covid wasn't the major contributory factor in a portion of other deaths, and that some people with co-morbidities might still be alive today if they hadn't caught Covid.

            • RedLogix 2.1.1.1.2.1
              28 December 2021 at 2:27 pm

              Because it's so hard to untangle cause and effect with a disease that has a relatively low IFR like COVID, many people have turned to "Excess Deaths" as the most meaningful piece of information.

            • Poission 2.1.1.1.2.2
              28 December 2021 at 6:49 pm

              Ioannidis model also shows various assumptions,including equality across all groups (equal infection possibility) of an IFR of around 0.25% in the (in non‐institutionalized people) which would equate to around 800k in the US,and globally an IFR of around 0.19% which equates to around the excess death stats of around 15 million.

              https://github.com/TheEconomist/covid-19-the-economist-global-excess-deaths-model

              • Bill …
                28 December 2021 at 6:59 pm

                show various assumption, including equality across all groups

                lol – that explains why he has a different IFR for over 70 y.o and under 70 y.o. – because "equality across all groups". ffs. (0.05% for under 70s and 0.15% across all ages)

                • Poission …
                  28 December 2021 at 7:21 pm

                  Ioannidis 2020.

                  Infection fatality rate is classified here in 5 bins for parsimony, but of course risk functions in reality are continuous. The presented simulations correspond to a global infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.19% if people in all risk strata have an equal chance of infection,

        • McFlock 2.1.1.2
          28 December 2021 at 2:34 pm

          No objection here. Even that count suggest that fixation on myocarditis as a reason for being vaccine hesitant is more a justification for an existing opinion rather than an actual assessment of risk.

  3. francesca 3
    28 December 2021 at 8:57 am

    Yes, it seems that statistics can be used in a misleading way in order to keep the public messaging simple..vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate.

    I've never seen the stats broken down by age like that before.

    You can witness Siouxsie Wiles obfuscating in that way .It's not a good look.

    The end justifies the means and all

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/16-09-2021/siouxsie-wiles-toby-morris-do-i-need-a-covid-19-vaccine-even-if-im-fit-and-healthy

    Wiles makes the plea for anyone experiencing the symtoms of myocarditis to waste no time in presenting to the medics.

    In real life, myocarditis can only be definitively diagnosed by hospitalisation, so sublethal attacks are very often sent away with an on the spot diagnosis of panic attack

    I know of, in my circle, at least 3 young men who have had rapid onset panic attack and stress disorder for the first time in their lives after obediently presenting with chest pain, rapid heart pulse and breathlessness post vaccine .Despite having been vaccinated several times in their lives without such consequences.

    So called mild myocarditis, while not leading to death or hospitalisation is no picnic.

    • Bill 3.1
      28 December 2021 at 12:27 pm

      There's a study or observation out there somewhere (no way I'm going to be able to find it atm) showing a spike in 999 calls for an ambulance among younger men in Scotland for heart problems/scares that track with the roll-out of the vaccination programme there.

      The end justifies the means and all

      Hey! That could be the Covidian Cultist's motto. 😉