Jump to content

News Forum - Intentionally catching Omicron is a really stupid idea


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TimothyN said:

On your first sentence. Clearly and demonstrably wrong. On this issue of The Thaiger making money or profiting from Covid, we can assure you the opposite is true. Advertising revenue is down and there's no clear extra clicks, across the board. The expansion has come from investment on our part and an investment raise as we get ready for a recovery in the future.

As I said, you've quoted the wrong person and are replying to someone else, but the reason advertising revenue is down should be obvious just from this thread.

A third of the platform is now devoted to providing a platform for assorted anti-vaxxers, nay-sayers and 'it's a hoaxers' with no interest in Thailand or anything to do with Thailand.  Why would any advertiser be interested in advertising to them, here?

Another third is a platform for those who are actively trying to persuade people NOT to come to Thailand, NOT to buy property, insurance, come for a holiday, etc.  No advertiser in their right mind would want them anywhere near their advertisements.

Sandwiched between them is an ever dwindling third of people who are interested In Thailand and who want to talk about the good, the bad and the in-between, but they're rapidly losing interest as given the other two 'thirds' it's increasingly pointless.

The Thaiger's your baby, @TimothyN, but it's steadily being killed in front of you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Stardust said:

You claimed it is less dangereous than delta because of the younger generation. I was regarding to this claim from you.

Jesus H Christ.

Omicron is less dangerous because even though far more are infected the infections are a lot less dangerous to a younger population and South Africa has a much younger population - 27 there vs 41 here.

For an older population, although the infections are less serious there are going to be more of them. Instead of maybe 20% of a thousand being infected, of whom it's serious for 20% (so 40 out of the thousand), maybe 50% of the thousand will be infected, of whom it's serious for 10% (so 50 out of the thousand).

< edited>

Edited by Faz
personal disparaging comment removed
  • Like 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stardust as you get older your Immune system begins to breakdown. In younger people there immune system is strong so can fight off attacks quickly if your young fit and healthy. Same as a younger person won't feel the cold like an older person who needs more clothing to stay warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I did.

Your claim was a broad brush one that:

That's simply untrue,

What they said, very clearly, was that "repeat doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people".

My bold: EVENTUALLY.

You simply edited out the key word - EVENTUALLY - which  makes it very different.

Similarly your quote from the WHO also edited out the key part. Yours:

vs the WHO's unedited paragraph:

"With near- and medium-term supply of the available vaccines, the need for equity in access to vaccines across countries to achieve global public health goals, programmatic considerations including vaccine demand, and evolution of the virus, a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable."

The problem, according to the WHO, is the part you again somehow missed out: the issue they're commenting on is about "SUPPLY" and "EQUITY", nothing else - you've simply edited their point so it appears to be linked to the EU's while it's completely unconnected.

The WHO actually say the complete opposite to your suggestion in their "Key Message" (my bold):

"In the context of the circulation of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern, the TAG-CO-VAC urges broader access globally to current COVID-19 vaccines for primary series and booster doses, in the hope that this also mitigates the emergence and impact of new VOCs."

The usual hair-splitting buffalo manure disguised as 'exposing my lies'.

#1 - Eventually means 'in the end' (thought you were an english language speaker).  Explain to me the difference between 'might' - the word I used, and 'could eventually' - in my book the meaning is same.

#2 - I quoted the conclusion - why mention 'supply' and 'equity' as the reasoning, it doesn't change anything to the WHO's conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saltire said:

Thought i'd inject a bit of optimism.

Dr John Cambells latest video.

"Dr" John Campbell is not a medical doctor - he's a retired nurse, with limited qualifications and experience..

 

  • Like 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

"Dr" John Campbell is not a medical doctor - he's a retired nurse, with limited qualifications and experience..

Still more qualified and accomplished than you ever will be 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

The usual hair-splitting buffalo manure disguised as 'exposing my lies'.

#1 - Eventually means 'in the end' (thought you were an english language speaker).  Explain to me the difference between 'might' - the word I used, and 'could eventually' - in my book the meaning is same.

No, you lied - plain and simple.

You said that "they have now come out with a statement that booster-shots might harm your immune-system" when they hadn't as they'd said that "repeat doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people".

That isn't "hair-splitting" it's totally different.

If in your book the meaning is the same, you need to get a different book.

11 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

#2 - I quoted the conclusion - why mention 'supply' and 'equity' as the reasoning, it doesn't change anything to the WHO's conclusion.

No, you didn't "quote the conclusion" - that's a direct lie.

The only time your quote appears is about one third of the way into the article under "Global public health goals of COVID-19 vaccines".

The conclusion covers the main point of the statement, which was to encourage the development of new and better vaccines, so avoiding the need for "repeated booster doses" which manufacturers are unable to supply in the quantity required.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Angry 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the medrxiv paper about omicron in the US, DrBeen breaks down the stats of 2018/19 flu season vs the 60K people with omicron.  That stats speak for themselves, omicron is much less severe than the flu, much less. Hopefully gov'ts will pull their heads out and look at actual data and not listen to the fear porn mongers wanting to hold onto power.

See this video for the full presentation  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVeYXWUEJEE

 

flu vs omicrom.jpg

Edited by Ttalk
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Jesus H Christ.

Omicron is less dangerous because even though far more are infected the infections are a lot less dangerous to a younger population and South Africa has a much younger population - 27 there vs 41 here.

For an older population, although the infections are less serious there are going to be more of them. Instead of maybe 20% of a thousand being infected, of whom it's serious for 20% (so 40 out of the thousand), maybe 50% of the thousand will be infected, of whom it's serious for 10% (so 50 out of the thousand).

If you can't understand that, try Google Translate as clearly you're unable to understand anything that's being said here.

See my post above about flu vs omicron.  Always good to learn something.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

  Explain to me the difference between 'might' - the word I used, and 'could eventually'

An English language lesson is hardly on topic, but since you're evidently just trying to destroy the thread:

"booster-shots might harm your immune-system" means what it says - that any booster shots might harm your immune system.

"repeat doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people" means that only repeat doses every four months could harm your immune system if repeated for a protracted period.

It's like the difference between stamping your foot once or twice and risking hurting yourself and doing so repeatedly for a protracted period (eventually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ttalk said:

See my post above about flu vs omicron.  Always good to learn something.  

In all respect Ttalk were discussing Omicron not the Flu or a chart a year before Covid appeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ynwaps said:

Still more qualified and accomplished than you ever will be 

Wrong on both counts, although working as a nurse wasn't one of the latter.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stonker said:

No, you lied - plain and simple.

You said that "they have now come out with a statement that booster-shots might harm your immune-system" when they hadn't as they'd said that "repeat doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people".

That isn't "hair-splitting" it's totally different.

If in your book the meaning is the same, you need to get a different book.

No, you didn't "quote the conclusion" - that's a direct lie.

The only time your quote appears is about one third of the way into the article under "Global public health goals of COVID-19 vaccines".

The conclusion covers the main point of the statement, which was to encourage the development of new and better vaccines, so avoiding the need for "repeated booster doses" which manufacturers are unable to supply in the quantity required.

Pathetic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ttalk said:

In the medrxiv paper about omicron in the US, DrBeen breaks down the stats of 2018/19 flu season vs the 60K people with omicron.  That stats speak for themselves, omicron is much less severe than the flu, much less. Hopefully gov'ts will pull their heads out and look at actual data and not listen to the fear porn mongers wanting to hold onto power.

See this video for the full presentation  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVeYXWUEJEE

flu vs omicrom.jpg

Simply absurd.

He's comparing the Flu stats for a year with the Omicron stats for a day.

If you want to compare the stats for 'flu, you could at least do so over a similar period and for Thailand which is what this forum is supposed to focus on.

https://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/crimecourtscalamity/2020/11/19/2020s-flu-cases-plunge-in-covid-anxious-thailand/

There were, for example, 3 (three) flu deaths here in 2020 and the year before that there were 27, with most years averaging around 30 or less.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Pathetic!

I used to respect some of your posts as informative if not necessarily informed. Now, all you're clearly intent on doing is destroying this thread and this forum with your lies and misinformation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I used to respect some of your posts as informative if not necessarily informed. Now, all you're clearly intent on doing is destroying this thread and this forum with your lies and misinformation.

I quoted and linked to two informative sources:

>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says

>> https://www.who.int/news/item/11-01-2022-interim-statement-on-covid-19-vaccines-in-the-context-of-the-circulation-of-the-omicron-sars-cov-2-variant-from-the-who-technical-advisory-group-on-covid-19-vaccine-composition

Me introducing their content - as required by Forum Guidelines - by using a simpler phrased version is NOT an attempt to 'destroy this thread and spread lies and mis-information'. 

If my short intro to those sources used inaccurate wording, I apologize for that.  But it is no reason to dismiss the information from these sources which are quite relevant in the context of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Thaiger said:

You don't say 😝... unless, of course, one is competing for the annual Darwin awards. Lol

You can only get Measles once, and it probably won't kill you, but I'm not going to try to catch that virus either... trying to catch something that "might" not kill you (count the flu in this category as well), in order to build natural immunity that wanes over time, is beyond the pale 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was Delta, I’d agree, but it’s not, it’s Omicron.  I hope I catch it.  I am 99.999% sure I’ll be ok after 3 - 5 days.  I will have the best immunity available.  As nice as it was for the Thai government to give me two Pfizer jabs, getting Omicron will be better.  Just like all the people in the UK who have (will fully) caught it were ok.   Comparing your experience with shingles was dumb.  Stick to comparing apples with apples.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off-topic posts removed and one near-abusive post by vlad hidden.  You've all had a fair chance to comment on the topic but in view of the bickering it is now closed.

Romulus. with only 2 posts. provides an honest opinion thank you, too bad some of our longer-term members can't be as polite.

FWIW I was talking with a Brisbane guy today who works among 100's of employees, nearly 20% of whom have tested +ve for covid and been sent home for 7 days.  The worst symptom was headaches whilst most never realised they were ill before the atk test.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use