vaccine poll | Page 11 | GTAMotorcycle.com

vaccine poll

Vaccinated?

  • Yes...Pfizer or Moderna

    Votes: 82 58.6%

  • Yes...Astra Zeneca or J&J

    Votes: 26 18.6%

  • not yet but soon

    Votes: 11 7.9%

  • not booking it yet but I might get it eventually

    Votes: 11 7.9%

  • not going to get vaccinated

    Votes: 13 9.3%
  • Total voters
    140
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian P said:
Personally I find the involvement of the Catholic church back then, and their lack of any response whatsoever today, to be disgusting and shameful. We can't undo the mistakes of the past, but at least other involved parties have made apologies. Where is theirs?
Click to expand...
They are still sitting on piles of money that is actually theirs. Governments don't care if they apologize because it's not their money going into the settlement fund. RC church (as with many religions) continues to place money well in front of anything that would be considered good or fair in the eyes of any sky being.
 
Brian P said:
Here's some reading material for you, and given the UK's high vaccination rate, this should give some pause:

www.bbc.com

Covid: Indian variant 'now dominant' in the UK

Confirmed cases of the Indian variant have risen to 12,431 in the UK, according to new data from Public Health England
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Key phrase in there: "The majority had not yet been vaccinated."

And right after that ... "And 6% had had both jabs." ... Vaccines are not 100% effective ... and it takes time after the second dose for it to reach maximum effectiveness (this is, or should be, common knowledge).

From here ... Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations - Statistics and Research

About 60% of the total UK population has had at least one dose, and about 40% have had both doses. If most of the people getting the new variant weren't vaccinated ... it means the vaccine "still works".
Click to expand...
Key words jump out .

"Scientists believe the variant, now known as Delta, has overtaken the Kent, or Alpha, variant."

Belive not proven .

"They say that there may also be a higher risk of hospitalisation linked to the Delta variant."

May be higher.

"But that is based on early evidence, and PHE say more data is needed to have more confidence in the finding."

More data to have confidence .

" Source : BBC analysis of PHE data . "

So Jim Reed at BBC has written a news arcticle to scare people with no scientific facts .
 
Scientific articles are always couched in discussion of possibilities and probabilities, in recognition that our knowledge is not 100%, and never will be.

"Scientists believe the variant, now known as Delta, has overtaken the Kent, or Alpha, variant." This will be based upon representative samples of the population arising from people getting tested because they are sick. This can never be known with certainty unless you were to sample 100% of the population including testing all the people who aren't sick because you don't know if they are infected but asymptomatic. This is obviously impossible to achieve, so the best we can get ... is a probabilistic estimate, based upon a representative sample. Scientists don't say they "believe" something unless they have something to back up the statement ... it's not merely a journalist imagining things. The article has references ... go check them out.

Same thing about the risk of hospitalisation.

More data is ALWAYS needed. Any time you make an estimate based upon probabilities - which is all you are ever going to get for something like this ... you ALWAYS state that more data is needed to have more confidence in the findings.

A one hundred percent fully proven factual situation is impossible to achieve. If that's what you are waiting for, we'll all be dead before it ever happens. Relying upon the surveys and samples and estimates (from people qualified to make such estimates) ... is the best we can do.
 
Brian P said:
Scientific articles are always couched in discussion of possibilities and probabilities, in recognition that our knowledge is not 100%, and never will be.

"Scientists believe the variant, now known as Delta, has overtaken the Kent, or Alpha, variant." This will be based upon representative samples of the population arising from people getting tested because they are sick. This can never be known with certainty unless you were to sample 100% of the population including testing all the people who aren't sick because you don't know if they are infected but asymptomatic. This is obviously impossible to achieve, so the best we can get ... is a probabilistic estimate, based upon a representative sample. Scientists don't say they "believe" something unless they have something to back up the statement ... it's not merely a journalist imagining things. The article has references ... go check them out.

Same thing about the risk of hospitalisation.

More data is ALWAYS needed. Any time you make an estimate based upon probabilities - which is all you are ever going to get for something like this ... you ALWAYS state that more data is needed to have more confidence in the findings.

A one hundred percent fully proven factual situation is impossible to achieve. If that's what you are waiting for, we'll all be dead before it ever happens. Relying upon the surveys and samples and estimates (from people qualified to make such estimates) ... is the best we can do.
Click to expand...
Please post your refrences . BBC analaysis by Jim Reed don't count .

What scientists ? What are their names ? Where is their research ?

Science is based on numbers and proven data . Not probabilities . Gambling is based on probabilities .

One hundred proven fact is water will boil at 100c and it will freeze at 0c . I'm not dead and that is a factual situation .

Relying on serveys is stupid and not scientific .
 
Watching the NHL playoff game tonight in Vegas. Full house; 18,000 fans and not a mask in sight, other than the coaching staff for both teams. They're packed in side by each - no social distancing at all. Back to normal.
I think this is the first wide open sporting event since March 2020? It seems odd hearing all the noise from the cheering fans.
 
pfbmgd said:
One hundred proven fact is water will boil at 100c and it will freeze at 0c
Click to expand...

I can make the counter statement of water boils at 99.4*C and also be 100% correct.

Yes, water does boil at sea level at 1atm at 100*C, but the median elevation people live at is 194m, where water boils at 99.4*C.

It is all about how you frame the statement, and facts or omit important information. Such as Pfizer did with eliminating 3,410 symptomatic trial participants because their assumption was if they never got a PCR test its not COVID and it's therefore not reportable. Make the other assumption, since cold and flus are non-existent, a lack of PCR test result is still a likely positive COVID case. Then efficiency goes from 95%, to a mere 29% and it would have never been authorized under Emergency Use.

A very popular and highly cited papers is about how so called sound scientific studies can manipulate data to make it suit them.

journals.plos.org

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
 
Dimitri said:
I can make the counter statement of water boils at 99.4*C and also be 100% correct.

Yes, water does boil at sea level at 1atm at 100*C, but the median elevation people live at is 194m, where water boils at 99.4*C.

It is all about how you frame the statement, and facts or omit important information. Such as Pfizer did with eliminating 3,410 symptomatic trial participants because their assumption was if they never got a PCR test its not COVID and it's therefore not reportable. Make the other assumption, since cold and flus are non-existent, a lack of PCR test result is still a likely positive COVID case. Then efficiency goes from 95%, to a mere 29% and it would have never been authorized under Emergency Use.

A very popular and highly cited papers is about how so called sound scientific studies can manipulate data to make it suit them.

journals.plos.org

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
Click to expand...
I knew I should have added elivation . My bad .
 
pfbmgd said:
Please post your refrences . BBC analaysis by Jim Reed don't count .

What scientists ? What are their names ? Where is their research ?

Science is based on numbers and proven data . Not probabilities . Gambling is based on probabilities .

One hundred proven fact is water will boil at 100c and it will freeze at 0c . I'm not dead and that is a factual situation .

Relying on serveys is stupid and not scientific .
Click to expand...

Neither of those statements are true for water for all elevations…that’s science. Tea tastes like crap made at the top of Everest.

Meanwhile, Emerging Indian variant in the UK, passing clouds or a cause for panic?

Just a letter to the editor at the BMJ with lots of nice references.

While science evolves or when, in this case, things are happening at such a new pace that papers are yet to surface, you can make some predictions based on what you can measure and see at the current time.

R values are above 1 in the UK in many places. That indicates continued spread and it’s gaining pace. Combined with other information this is cause for concern.
 
ToSlow said:
This is interesting
Click to expand...

Anything that references the "Nuremberg Code" is out to lunch. Just a bunch of antivaxxers.

In Canada you have a right to refuse vaccinations. They cannot be mandatory regardless of the social pressure to take them. It's been fought through the courts multiple times.

So if someone doesn't want the vaccine, don't take it. If their willpower is so little they need to invoke a non-binding court opinion as justification they are just nuts. It's almost shameful trying to compare a volunteer vaccine to what animals like Dr. Mengele did.
 
klr_guy said:
My second dose of Pfizer had been scheduled for August 3rd - just got a notification it's now in less than two weeks.
Click to expand...

Nice. I was wondering how this was going to work. I thought we would have to do all the legwork if second doses were starting to be delivered earlier.
 
For those who received their first dose at Trillium Health in Mississauga (includes myself), keep an eye on your email for a new second-dose date. My first dose was two days past the current cutoff date, but I would imagine that this pattern is going to continue.

Trillium Health Partners

www.trilliumhealthpartners.ca www.trilliumhealthpartners.ca
 
My two sisters in York and my brother, sister and sister in law in Halton all had to rebook online...they didn't get an automatic reschedule at all...
 
ifiddles said:
My two sisters in York and my brother, sister and sister in law in Halton all had to rebook online...they didn't get an automatic reschedule at all...
Click to expand...
I'm in Durham - literally did nothing to speed it up - just a surprise text & email this morning.
 
Time for some number crunching. As of right now approx 24 million doses have been distributed, there are 19 million partially vaccinated people. If we make a rough assumption that first doses stop now (we're leading the G7 and G20 in proportion of people with at least one dose, and are really close to reaching Israel's numbers) and everything from now on is second doses (and keep in mind, that continuing to hand out first doses is a GOOD thing to bring the total coverage even higher), need 19 million doses to get a second dose into everyone currently vaccinated. That's basically June's scheduled deliveries plus July's scheduled deliveries. We should be able to get this mostly done in the next couple of months, obviously with stragglers going into August, and if people continue to get first doses (and thus eventually need a second dose) that'll extend the timeframe a little but increase overall vaccine coverage, which is a GOOD thing.

The criteria set by the feds some time ago for starting re-opening (75% of eligible adults with first dose plus 20% second dose) is foreseeable in a couple of weeks - not far away from Ontario's "phase 1" re-opening (which isn't going to make much practical difference given that most people are out and about anyhow).

COVID-19 vaccination coverage in Canada - Canada.ca

COVID-19 vaccination coverage across Canada by demographics and key populations. Updated every Friday at 12:00 PM Eastern Time.
health-infobase.canada.ca health-infobase.canada.ca
 
Dimitri said:
Anything that references the "Nuremberg Code" is out to lunch. Just a bunch of antivaxxers.
Click to expand...
You might want to go back and google this. I've read a few of the meanings for this Nuremberg Code and not one mentioned anything about antivaxxers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom