• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,090
You should go re-read my post.

I get the impression you’re quite happy with the suggestion a majority of Canadians prefer to segregate the unvaccinated from society.

Have we peaked? Don’t know, try this: COVID-19 daily epidemiology update - Canada.ca
I did. It’s full of guesses.

“DON’T KNOW” That’s all I needed from you. Go find out and we can talk about what the UK and Canada are doing. Because you are not informed enough for me to get anything of value from this discussion with you.

You may have missed my entire argument with Altair about denying health care to the unvaccinated or my opinion on rapid tests being a way to bridge gaps.

But like most of your arguments that make assumptions and guesses you would be wrong.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
831
Points
1,010
I did. It’s full of guesses.

“DON’T KNOW” That’s all I needed from you. Go find out and we can talk about what the UK and Canada are doing. Because you are not informed enough for me to get anything of value from this discussion with you.

You may have missed my entire argument with Altair about denying health care to the unvaccinated or my opinion on rapid tests being a way to bridge gaps.

But like most of your arguments that make assumptions and guesses you would be wrong.
Denying healthcare is one thing, where do you stand on societal restrictions as a whole?

I try to point out things no one else mentions… Feel free to block my posts Remius, if I don’t measure up to your standards. :LOL:
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,090
Denying healthcare is one thing, where do you stand on societal restrictions as a whole?

I try to point out things no one else mentions… Feel free to block my posts Remius, if I don’t measure up to your standards. :LOL:
I have a no block policy.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,090

We went from talking about taxing the unvaccinated to talking about jailing them very fast. :ROFLMAO:
Not that far off from the number of people who are said to be done with all of this.

27% isn’t a number to be afraid of. Let alone the fact that legally it’s quite likely impossible.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
831
Points
1,010
It was said mandatory vaccination wasn't supported in Canadian law, yet they've found ways to coerce and force people to "choose" to be vaccinated by taking away things until they make the right choice, such as society access and the ability to retain jobs. Not to mention the characterization of being a racist extremist, by the PM, for not being agreeable to one particular vaccine.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,090
It was said mandatory vaccination wasn't supported in Canadian law, yet they've found ways to coerce and force people to "choose" to be vaccinated by taking away things until they make the right choice, such as society access and the ability to retain jobs. Not to mention the characterization of being a racist extremist, by the PM, for not being agreeable to one particular vaccine.
Mandatory vaccinations are not supported by law. But conditions of employment are supported by law. It’s has been demonstrated by the court system.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,658
Points
1,090
NOW - UK PM Boris Johnson: "The government will no longer mandate the wearing of face masks anywhere."


Not text to copy and paste. You'll have to watch it. Masks, passports, work from home all gone.
They’ve also passed their peak for Omicron.

But Johnson is also facing calls to step down so I’m sure part of this is a distraction. Not saying the move is wrong for their situation but the timing with this current scandal is a bit suspicious.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,196
Points
1,010
But it also seems that a majority of vaccinated people are fine with limiting the unvaccinated access to society.

Occasionally I read articles written by people musing on the ill behaviour of the past and wondering what kind of pressures could make people do such things. Now we know.
 
  • Insightful
Reactions: QV

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,173
Points
1,160
I said it was my impressions based on what I’ve seen and experienced. Tough concept I know.

And your concept was "rigorously peer reviewed". And speaking of peer review . . .

. . . passed rigorous peer review, and published this week.

Ivermectin enters the chat


Can you describe "rigorous" peer review generally and more specifically as it applies to this study and the particular journal in which it was published?

A hypothetical question? Partly, but since the beginning of this pandemic I've been astounded by the number of times that individuals (not restricted solely to these forums) have referred to "peer reviewed" articles as if that appellation made such articles unquestionable when my assumption is that the majority of such quoters previously never had reason nor inclination to look at an academic/professional journal.

The site on which this article was published includes a brief description of their review policy.

Credible Peer Review Required
Cureus publishes all credible medical science applicable to the global healthcare community. Article credibility is determined by favorable commentary from trusted peer reviewers that includes substantial critical feedback confirming the absence of fatal scientific and methodological flaws.

All authors should invite unbiased and expert reviewers who will provide critical feedback. Please note that medical students may not be invited to peer review. Positive reviews lacking in substantial constructive feedback will be closely scrutinized by our editors and may be rejected. Think of it this way - your peer reviewers will be reviewed, therefore inviting credible reviewers is of paramount importance.

Two completed reviews are required in order to proceed, one of which must be from a reviewer invited by Cureus. This requirement will be waived after 21 days if two author-invited reviews have been submitted.

I readily admit that going to the link you provided was the first time I visited the site and thus was unfamiliar with them or with any reputation that they may have. And while the massive proliferation of on-line "professional" journals has made the dissemination of research much more inclusive, there is still cachet to being published in a journal that boasts a greater reputation. That reputation usually goes hand in hand with a more stringent review process and thus more acceptance of the conclusions reached in published articles. Though I do not lump Cureus in with a number of on-line "peer review" journals that are so obviously thinly veiled scams, neither do I accept that their review is "rigorous".

There is no imposed standard of peer review, however there are some generally accepted policies with the strictest forms usually found in the more prestigious journals. Several links here that discuss review.


One notable difference between the generally accepted (more rigorous) and Cureus' policies is their acceptance of author invited reviewers, whereas the usual best practice is editor assigned/invited and double blind (neither author nor reviewer know the other's identity). I don't know specifically if the "peer review" for the article you quoted was author invited but my less that satisfactory opinion was partly predicated on the timeline they provided for the review.

Publication history​

Peer review began: January 04, 2022
Peer review concluded: January 13, 2022
Published: January 15, 2022

A more positive note is that Cureus includes "comments" from readers, something the more disreputable journal sites do not or heavily edit to a set agenda. Some of the article's comments do question some of the study's methodology but unfortunately there isn't a larger continuing discussion, however that may be due to the site's relative obscurity, something I hope will improve over time (along with the review process) because they seem to have an easy to use and inclusive format.

As to the conclusions reached in the study you linked, probably my best response would be to link to comments made in response to a pre-print of the article.

 
Last edited:

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
831
Points
1,010
And your concept was "rigorously peer reviewed". And speaking of peer review . . .



Can you describe "rigorous" peer review generally and more specifically as it applies to this study and the particular journal in which it was published?

A hypothetical question? Partly, but since the beginning of this pandemic I've been astounded by the number of times that individuals (not restricted solely to these forums) have referred to "peer reviewed" articles as if that appellation made such articles unquestionable when my assumption is that the majority of such quoters previously never had reason nor inclination to look at an academic/professional journal.

The site on which this article was published includes a brief description of their review policy.



I readily admit that going to the link you provided was the first time I visited the site and thus was unfamiliar with them or with any reputation that they may have. And while the massive proliferation of on-line "professional" journals has made the dissemination of research much more inclusive, there is still cachet to being published in a journal that boasts a greater reputation. That reputation usually goes hand in hand with a more stringent review process and thus more acceptance of the conclusions reached in published articles. Though I do not lump Cureus in with a number of on-line "peer review" journals that are so obviously thinly veiled scams, neither do I accept that their review is "rigorous".

There is no imposed standard of peer review, however there are some generally accepted policies with the strictest forms usually found in the more prestigious journals. Several links here that discuss review.


One notable difference between the generally accepted (more rigorous) and Cureus' policies is their acceptance of author invited reviewers, whereas the usual best practice is editor assigned/invited and double blind (neither author nor reviewer know the other's identity). I don't know specifically if the "peer review" for the article you quoted was author invited but my less that satisfactory opinion was partly predicated on the timeline they provided for the review.


A more positive note is that Cureus includes "comments" from readers, something the more disreputable journal sites do not or heavily edit to a set agenda. Some of the article's comments do question some of the study's methodology but unfortunately there isn't a larger continuing discussion, however that may be due to the site's relative obscurity, something I hope will improve over time (along with the review process) because they seem to have an easy to use and inclusive format.

As to the conclusions reached in the study you linked, probably my best response would be to link to comments made in response to a pre-print of the article.

If only you applied such rigorous scrutiny to all positions on this subject.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
831
Points
1,010
Mandatory vaccinations are not supported by law. But conditions of employment are supported by law. It’s has been demonstrated by the court system.
I wonder… if government awarded private corporations with incentives to instil vaccine mandates on employees, would that be considered too much reach by the state?

Conversely what if government penalized private corporations for not doing it?

In either case, would that corporation then be acting as an agent of the state to compel vaccine mandates that the government couldn’t ordinarily lawfully order?
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,001
Points
1,060
I think most serving CAF members are used to the rigid dictatorial environment of service, unlimited liability, orders etc…and I also don’t think the general population as a whole are tiktok obsessed selfish people. So I stand by my statement. No offence intended there EITS.
None taken. 👍🏻
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
831
Points
1,010
Official UK gov site answers the following question: “Please supply deaths caused solely by covid 19, where covid is the only cause of death listed on the death certificate, broken down by age group and gender between feb 2020 up to and including dec 2021.”


In England and Wales over the two year pandemic, C19 was determined to be the only cause of death for only 1,189 people under 65 years old. It shoots up after 65 but I don’t think I’ll get an argument that advanced age is not a comorbidity unto itself.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,366
Points
1,160
COVID mortality rates: It's not just bad, it's historically bad:


COVID-19: Four different death tolls, but scale of tragedy depends on which numbers you choose​


For instance, compare last year with the 2015-19 period and the increase in mortality is closer to 2.7%. So answer c) is sort of correct.

But still, it seems odd to look at 2021 in isolation given it followed such a severe year for deaths, so if we want a view of the death toll with more perspective we might do better to look at both 2020 and 2021, and here the verdict is quite clear.

Take an average of the mortality rate over these two years and we have never seen as big a deterioration since 1940/41.

And you have to go back to WWI and the Spanish Flu to find another period of two or more years which were all far worse the preceding five-year average.

 

Quirky

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
778
Points
1,140
Could also have something to do with the obesity epidemic and generally overall poor health of the population at large. Mississippi and Alabama give you clues, hell so does our FN population, but lets ignore that and call this flu a population killer.

Hopefully this will convince people to actually take personal responsibility for their own health….they won’t.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
671
Points
1,260
And you have to go back to WWI and the Spanish Flu to find another period of two or more years which were all far worse the preceding five-year average.

Interesting.

Saw these three reasons why some people may - or may not - choose to wear a mask.

1. Humility: I don’t know if I have COVID as it is clear that people can spread the disease before they have symptoms.

2. Kindness: I don’t know if the person I am near has a kid battling cancer, or cares for their elderly mom. While I might be fine, they might not.

3. Community: I want my community to thrive, businesses to stay open, employees to stay healthy.

 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
706
Points
1,060
Could also have something to do with the obesity epidemic and generally overall poor health of the population at large. Mississippi and Alabama give you clues, hell so does our FN population, but lets ignore that and call this flu a population killer.

Hopefully this will convince people to actually take personal responsibility for their own health….they won’t.
So you’re hypothesizing that though obesity has been a problem for decades it just happened to have suddenly spiked the death toll at the precise time that a fake pandemic occurred?
 
Top