Author Topic: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?  (Read 12432 times)

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #275 on: April 07, 2021, 12:12:39 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much?  ??? ???

Right...I really have to leave this now, I do actually have things to do  :)  )

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #276 on: April 07, 2021, 12:14:19 pm »
I don't think anyone who "is a medical [or any other] professional", or says they are, should have their opinion given any more weight on a largely anonymous internet forum than anybody else.
The forum, like any, doesn't have a recognized authentication method, so as a reader, I have no way of telling whether any given poster actually is a medical professional or simply claims to be a medical professional, and neither should I need/want one.

You are Michael Gove and I claim my 50 pence and packet of Rollos.

More Seriously, if someone asks medical questions or talks medical pish then people with the medical k ow ledge regardless of where it is should be allowed to speak out.

Replace medical with, Engineering, Architectural, Legal, It etc etc.
It's all the same.

The alternative is people get to talk pish with impunity and ultimately someone comes to serious harm or other. That's unethical.

The Problem of  verification however is valid, the good news is, if Chris is using his real name then there are multiple sources you can validate it against that are public starting with the gmc website.

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

Geriatricdolan

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #277 on: April 07, 2021, 12:17:01 pm »
This isn't wiki. This is a community of people interacting over what is now 16 years. Many of whom have met, are friends, some have married or formed partnerships. It is absolutely fine for GD not to invest anything in the forum at all, but he has to accept that many others do. He wants to be a transient member, fine. He places no value at all in the forum, fine. At least I can weigh up his contribution with that in mind. I don't mean that as a snarky comment or an insult to him, just that it is likely that I won't view him as a poster in whom I place value in the way that I do in some others.

Look, there was a time when I was the authority on bicycle wheels on another forum, that lasted for about 3-4 years. One day I got a call in the office from a guy threatening me because of a comment I made. There is not much you can do when the forum host can't help.

I won't go that route again, I'm sorry, I won't get personally invested with a random population of internet people. As soon as I smell a bit of stalking, like the same user targeting me on more than one thread, I'm gone.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #278 on: April 07, 2021, 12:18:05 pm »
The alternative is people get to talk pish with impunity and ultimately someone comes to serious harm or other. That's unethical.

You get anti-vexers and anti-lockdowners getting disproportionate airtime.

We've seen it here, but, thanks to the generally thoughtful posters, they often get short-shrift.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #279 on: April 07, 2021, 12:27:30 pm »

More Seriously, if someone asks medical questions or talks medical pish then people with the medical k ow ledge regardless of where it is should be allowed to speak out.

Replace medical with, Engineering, Architectural, Legal, It etc etc.
It's all the same.

The alternative is people get to talk pish with impunity and ultimately someone comes to serious harm or other. That's unethical.



Maybe the solution is that we shouldn't be arguing about matters of fact and posting opinions instead.

...the good news is, if Chris is using his real name then there are multiple sources you can validate it against that are public starting with the gmc website.


Brilliant!
so is this method still valid for people called "John Smith" or "Dave Jones" or is Chris's surname rare enough as makes no odds?
Even so we have no way of knowing whether he even is using his real name.

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #280 on: April 07, 2021, 12:36:38 pm »
The alternative is people get to talk pish with impunity and ultimately someone comes to serious harm or other. That's unethical.

You get anti-vexers and anti-lockdowners getting disproportionate airtime.

We've seen it here, but, thanks to the generally thoughtful posters, they often get short-shrift.

Most have given up trying to change the opinions of bigots as they are probably sick of their perpetual straw man arguments, hyperbolic anecdote, and refusal to engage in adult debate, and don't really even need to bother anyway because their points are being made far more eloquently by a growing number of journalists, and apart from a shrinking minority are increasingly preaching to the converted anyway.

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #281 on: April 07, 2021, 12:36:56 pm »
Opinions are generally useless, how in fuck can I find out how to fix my brakes from opinions.

It would be like bloody stackoverflow

Q: hi, I'm having a problem setting toe in on my cantis, they're tektro bah

A1: don't use cantis use discs

A2: don't use cantis use calupers

A3: don't use cantis use v-brakes

A4: what do you need brakes for.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk


Geriatricdolan

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #282 on: April 07, 2021, 12:38:29 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much  ??? ???


.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?

Geriatricdolan

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #283 on: April 07, 2021, 12:40:47 pm »
Opinions are generally useless, how in fuck can I find out how to fix my brakes from opinions.

It would be like bloody stackoverflow

Q: hi, I'm having a problem setting toe in on my cantis, they're tektro bah

A1: don't use cantis use discs

A2: don't use cantis use calupers

A3: don't use cantis use v-brakes

A4: what do you need brakes for.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

Would you look for an answer on an epidemiology forum?


FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #284 on: April 07, 2021, 12:53:53 pm »
Opinions are generally useless, how in fuck can I find out how to fix my brakes from opinions.

It would be like bloody stackoverflow

Q: hi, I'm having a problem setting toe in on my cantis, they're tektro bah

A1: don't use cantis use discs

A2: don't use cantis use calupers

A3: don't use cantis use v-brakes

A4: what do you need brakes for.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

Would you look for an answer on an epidemiology forum?
Nah I'd go on tiktok and ask Dr Kat



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

Hot Flatus

  • Mediocre polyglot.Scoutmaster and nudist
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #285 on: April 07, 2021, 12:54:19 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much  ??? ???


.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?

Way back in this thread, you started arguing with something I said about infection, about virions etc etc.  I didn't claim you were undermining me, discrediting me. I didn't take it as some sort of personal attack. In fact 'me' didn't come into it.  This really is futile, now, and I think this is really  about how you perceive interactions with you.

And with that in mind, and with a huge virtual hug from me for you, I'm going to cease responding to you because I sense that it will have an impact that is certainly not intended by me.

Peace out  :)




Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #286 on: April 07, 2021, 12:56:17 pm »
The alternative is people get to talk pish with impunity and ultimately someone comes to serious harm or other. That's unethical.

You get anti-vexers and anti-lockdowners getting disproportionate airtime.

We've seen it here, but, thanks to the generally thoughtful posters, they often get short-shrift.

Most have given up trying to change the opinions of bigots as they are probably sick of their perpetual straw man arguments, hyperbolic anecdote, and refusal to engage in adult debate, and don't really even need to bother anyway because their points are being made far more eloquently by a growing number of journalists, and apart from a shrinking minority are increasingly preaching to the converted anyway.

Yes, anti-vax and anti-lockdown bigots are tiresome, aren't they.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #287 on: April 07, 2021, 01:29:57 pm »
Opinions are generally useless, how in fuck can I find out how to fix my brakes from opinions.

It would be like bloody stackoverflow

Q: hi, I'm having a problem setting toe in on my cantis, they're tektro bah

A1: don't use cantis use discs

A2: don't use cantis use calupers

A3: don't use cantis use v-brakes

A4: what do you need brakes for.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

different with asking for advice to having a debate though.


Yes, anti-vax and anti-lockdown bigots are tiresome, aren't they.

straw man again

Geriatricdolan

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #288 on: April 07, 2021, 01:37:46 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much  ??? ???


.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?

Way back in this thread, you started arguing with something I said about infection, about virions etc etc.  I didn't claim you were undermining me, discrediting me. I didn't take it as some sort of personal attack. In fact 'me' didn't come into it.  This really is futile, now, and I think this is really  about how you perceive interactions with you.

And with that in mind, and with a huge virtual hug from me for you, I'm going to cease responding to you because I sense that it will have an impact that is certainly not intended by me.

Peace out  :)

I said that you were incorrect in your statement, which is different from implying that you are not credible as a person.

Mine was a comment in reply to your comment, yours are comments on me as a person, that's the difference between having a discussion and bullying.

It is very, very important!

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #289 on: April 07, 2021, 01:40:22 pm »
It's well known that opinions are much more reliable than facts.

Opinions are constant whereas facts can change.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #290 on: April 07, 2021, 01:46:48 pm »
Opinions are generally useless, how in fuck can I find out how to fix my brakes from opinions.

It would be like bloody stackoverflow

Q: hi, I'm having a problem setting toe in on my cantis, they're tektro bah

A1: don't use cantis use discs

A2: don't use cantis use calupers

A3: don't use cantis use v-brakes

A4: what do you need brakes for.



Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

different with asking for advice to having a debate though.


Yes, anti-vax and anti-lockdown bigots are tiresome, aren't they.

straw man again

Not at all.

And if it is, then your post is too.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #291 on: April 07, 2021, 02:28:41 pm »
I'm not a straw man you are! I know you are but what am i  :D

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #292 on: April 07, 2021, 02:45:49 pm »
Yes but will audax recover from this????

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #293 on: April 07, 2021, 02:52:28 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much  ??? ???


.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?

Way back in this thread, you started arguing with something I said about infection, about virions etc etc.  I didn't claim you were undermining me, discrediting me. I didn't take it as some sort of personal attack. In fact 'me' didn't come into it.  This really is futile, now, and I think this is really  about how you perceive interactions with you.

And with that in mind, and with a huge virtual hug from me for you, I'm going to cease responding to you because I sense that it will have an impact that is certainly not intended by me.

Peace out  :)

I said that you were incorrect in your statement, which is different from implying that you are not credible as a person.

Mine was a comment in reply to your comment, yours are comments on me as a person, that's the difference between having a discussion and bullying.

It is very, very important!
For me the issue is misinformation even if accidental might dissuade people from vaccination. AZ are saying from the trials close to 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness and 100% efficacy against serious illness and hospitalisation. However you were saying it would be awesome to get even 90% efficacy against hospitalisation and death (and also quoted figures for after a single dose).

It is not unreasonable to ask where you get this “90% would be awesome” from, if it is a reliable source it would be nice to see a link, if it is from your own expertise some sort of indication of what that expertise is or at least some workings.

To my thinking if there is 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness then 90% against hospitalisation and death seems very low in comparison. This would indicate those unfortunate enough develop symptomatic covid despite being vaccinated would stand 50% chance of hospitalisation or death.

If in the unvaccinated population you develop symptomatic covid there may be say a 10% chance of needing hospitalisation and of those hospitalised a 10% chance of death (giving 1% fatality amongst symptomatic cases).

If those fractions were similar for those in the 20% that the vaccine failed to protect, multiplying, you get 2% chance of hospitalisation and 0.2% of death.

So given an 80% efficacy against developing symptoms that should give a 98% efficacy against hospitalisation and 99.8% against death even the vaccine provided no benefits at all to those that became symptomatic.

Geriatricdolan

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #294 on: April 07, 2021, 03:20:33 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much  ??? ???


.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?

Way back in this thread, you started arguing with something I said about infection, about virions etc etc.  I didn't claim you were undermining me, discrediting me. I didn't take it as some sort of personal attack. In fact 'me' didn't come into it.  This really is futile, now, and I think this is really  about how you perceive interactions with you.

And with that in mind, and with a huge virtual hug from me for you, I'm going to cease responding to you because I sense that it will have an impact that is certainly not intended by me.

Peace out  :)

I said that you were incorrect in your statement, which is different from implying that you are not credible as a person.

Mine was a comment in reply to your comment, yours are comments on me as a person, that's the difference between having a discussion and bullying.

It is very, very important!
For me the issue is misinformation even if accidental might dissuade people from vaccination. AZ are saying from the trials close to 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness and 100% efficacy against serious illness and hospitalisation. However you were saying it would be awesome to get even 90% efficacy against hospitalisation and death (and also quoted figures for after a single dose).

It is not unreasonable to ask where you get this “90% would be awesome” from, if it is a reliable source it would be nice to see a link, if it is from your own expertise some sort of indication of what that expertise is or at least some workings.

To my thinking if there is 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness then 90% against hospitalisation and death seems very low in comparison. This would indicate those unfortunate enough develop symptomatic covid despite being vaccinated would stand 50% chance of hospitalisation or death.

If in the unvaccinated population you develop symptomatic covid there may be say a 10% chance of needing hospitalisation and of those hospitalised a 10% chance of death (giving 1% fatality amongst symptomatic cases).

If those fractions were similar for those in the 20% that the vaccine failed to protect, multiplying, you get 2% chance of hospitalisation and 0.2% of death.

So given an 80% efficacy against developing symptoms that should give a 98% efficacy against hospitalisation and 99.8% against death even the vaccine provided no benefits at all to those that became symptomatic.

For the record, I received my AZ vaccine 12 days ago, so I am certainly not trying to dissuade people from vaccinating. I hope they do, but I am not here campaigning for them to do so either, it's a cycling forum FFS... as a matter of fact, I got my vaccine early probably because someone else didn't take theirs... so there is a silver lining...  ;D

Latest data on first dose, as reported above are 3/5 efficacy on reducing infection and 4/5 in reducing hospitalisation (wouldn't want your dog to howl), that's based on first dose only. My understanding is that the second dose marginally improves those figures, but the main objective is to extend the protection (that's what Whitty seems to stress in the press conferences).
We don't have figures including the second dose in the real world yet, only for trials. I seem to recall Astra Zeneca was around 70% effective in reducing infection and over 90% effective in reducing hospitalisations. That is based on around 20,000 volunteers, of which a handful ended up in hospital among the placebo population, so those data on hospitalisations and deaths are inevitably subject to more real world data.

As for transmission, who knows, if you look at Chile you might wonder whether it prevents transmission at all... over here they have come up with a 30% figure (as above, I can't remember if it reduces by 30% or reduces to 30%). It would be simplistic to conclude that if infections are down 60%, then even transmission should be down 60%. You could infect someone at 9 AM and test negative at 5 PM or the other way round, it is entirely possible... if you want to avoid bias, you need to avoid preconceptions.

But most importantly, none of these numbers matter, if the question is "how will Audax change as a result of Covid?"

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #295 on: April 07, 2021, 03:27:49 pm »
Yes but will audax recover from this????
Those who want to ride distances will do so.  There will always be someone willing to act as ACP rep.  Anything else is fluff.

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #296 on: April 07, 2021, 03:30:07 pm »
Ian h talking sense,  finally the world has gone mad.

Carlosfandango

  • Yours fragrantly.
Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #297 on: April 07, 2021, 03:34:50 pm »
Gawd 'elp us, I don't know about Audax, but there's a few ego's that'll never recover from this ;D

Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #298 on: April 07, 2021, 03:38:32 pm »
You are agreeing with Ben T's objection to dicscussion being stifled, and at the same time stifling the discussion by saying it shouldn't even take place here.  Contradictory, much  ??? ???


.. and again, a quick stab at undermining me, because apparently I contradict myself... you can't resist... do you not see that I don't do it with you?

Way back in this thread, you started arguing with something I said about infection, about virions etc etc.  I didn't claim you were undermining me, discrediting me. I didn't take it as some sort of personal attack. In fact 'me' didn't come into it.  This really is futile, now, and I think this is really  about how you perceive interactions with you.

And with that in mind, and with a huge virtual hug from me for you, I'm going to cease responding to you because I sense that it will have an impact that is certainly not intended by me.

Peace out  :)

I said that you were incorrect in your statement, which is different from implying that you are not credible as a person.

Mine was a comment in reply to your comment, yours are comments on me as a person, that's the difference between having a discussion and bullying.

It is very, very important!
For me the issue is misinformation even if accidental might dissuade people from vaccination. AZ are saying from the trials close to 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness and 100% efficacy against serious illness and hospitalisation. However you were saying it would be awesome to get even 90% efficacy against hospitalisation and death (and also quoted figures for after a single dose).

It is not unreasonable to ask where you get this “90% would be awesome” from, if it is a reliable source it would be nice to see a link, if it is from your own expertise some sort of indication of what that expertise is or at least some workings.

To my thinking if there is 80% efficacy against symptomatic illness then 90% against hospitalisation and death seems very low in comparison. This would indicate those unfortunate enough develop symptomatic covid despite being vaccinated would stand 50% chance of hospitalisation or death.

If in the unvaccinated population you develop symptomatic covid there may be say a 10% chance of needing hospitalisation and of those hospitalised a 10% chance of death (giving 1% fatality amongst symptomatic cases).

If those fractions were similar for those in the 20% that the vaccine failed to protect, multiplying, you get 2% chance of hospitalisation and 0.2% of death.

So given an 80% efficacy against developing symptoms that should give a 98% efficacy against hospitalisation and 99.8% against death even the vaccine provided no benefits at all to those that became symptomatic.

For the record, I received my AZ vaccine 12 days ago, so I am certainly not trying to dissuade people from vaccinating. I hope they do, but I am not here campaigning for them to do so either, it's a cycling forum FFS... as a matter of fact, I got my vaccine early probably because someone else didn't take theirs... so there is a silver lining...  ;D

Latest data on first dose, as reported above are 3/5 efficacy on reducing infection and 4/5 in reducing hospitalisation (wouldn't want your dog to howl), that's based on first dose only. My understanding is that the second dose marginally improves those figures, but the main objective is to extend the protection (that's what Whitty seems to stress in the press conferences).
We don't have figures including the second dose in the real world yet, only for trials. I seem to recall Astra Zeneca was around 70% effective in reducing infection and over 90% effective in reducing hospitalisations. That is based on around 20,000 volunteers, of which a handful ended up in hospital among the placebo population, so those data on hospitalisations and deaths are inevitably subject to more real world data.

As for transmission, who knows, if you look at Chile you might wonder whether it prevents transmission at all... over here they have come up with a 30% figure (as above, I can't remember if it reduces by 30% or reduces to 30%). It would be simplistic to conclude that if infections are down 60%, then even transmission should be down 60%. You could infect someone at 9 AM and test negative at 5 PM or the other way round, it is entirely possible... if you want to avoid bias, you need to avoid preconceptions.

But most importantly, none of these numbers matter, if the question is "how will Audax change as a result of Covid?"
There have been 2 main AZ trials, each with 32000 participants. There were zero hospitalisations or deaths amongst the vaccinated cohort though unfortunately there were some in the placebo groups.

Re: Will Audax as we know it recover from this?
« Reply #299 on: April 07, 2021, 03:39:05 pm »
Gawd 'elp us, I don't know about Audax, but there's a few ego's that'll never recover from this ;D

Carlos, this is a serious subject!  My bike hasn't even been called for its FIRST vaccination yet and it's certainly in the elderly age group.  Further, the sandals were stuck in the Suez canal for a week.  It's going to be touch and go.  Or rather, touch - wash hands - and go.