curious

Probably easier to just get wasted yourself and not worry about it.

And an interesting link between the Warriors CEO/NZTR board chair and the manager/agent for quite a number of Warriors including star player Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, no?

Exactly. We do not know if the vaccinated populations are more likely to be engaged with other protective factors such as you mention as well as the basics such as distancing, sanitisation, PPE use etc. No research has partialed eout these things yet. In the worst case there are tubes of Ivermectin in the tack room.

Having just been offered the vaccination I am trying to decide but will at least wait till the FDA makes a decision on approval. There is no doubt a personal and public health benefit of having it because it appears to reduce the risk of hospitilisation and death if you contract it though the quantum of that remains quite debateable. There are also signs in the data and research that it may reduce the risk of contracting it and of transmitting it, though that remains unclear. It's a risk/benefit thing given available information for me I guess. A major stumbling block is that while the short term adverse effects are mostly relatively minor, longer term adverse effects are entirely unknown. The idea that now booster injections are likely necessary (and they are talking 6-12 month intervals) while the adverse effects of the initial jab/s are completely unknown just adds to that concern. Boosters to modify effectiveness against new strains also seem highly likely as you say.

This is a worry: Drugmaker Pfizer said Thursday it is seeing waning immunity from its coronavirus vaccine and says it is picking up its efforts to develop a booster dose that will protect people from variants.

And the idea that someone in the industry thinks that NOW is the time for change. Some of us thought that decades ago.

Just that over there they might get paid for their trouble. Here it's a community service.

Not a good look.

INTEGRITY is doing things in accord with human rights law and natural justice due process. I'd say the NYRA are screwed here (if I were the next mayor of Auckland I would have said 'fucked') and I expect it will cost them plenty as it should.

Rings a bell eh? A racing authority thinks they can apply rules above and beyond the laws of the land, in particular human rights and natural justice. All over the presence of an illegal drug at an infinitissimal level that could not possibly have affected the horse's performance. Reminds me of the recent cobalt shemozzle down under.

I assume their analysis suggests it is more efficient to move the horse population either permanently or regularly to that track.

My reading was that it was for all industry meetings and only between Aug 28 and April 2. No increases at all during that period.

Yes what are the feature mins going to for the "other levels"? You'd think they would say in this sort of announcement.

https://www.tabnz.org/strong-boost-projected-tab-nzs-community-distributions

Is it true that Forbury are gifting their lights to the CJC so you can gallop before daylight for the increased fees?

Other than the regular meeting fees for any additional meetings, I don't see how that could be justified, especially since they were supposedly built primarily for training and trialling purposes which are largely expected to be self-funding. So, there is no increase in funding, just a reversion to the pre-covid levels?

So, you think in the US they get prescription drugs without a prescription or them being supplied by a vet?

Isn't that already the case in most jurisdictions?

What is ridiculous about it? You want to allow one tx for EIPH on racedays and not another even though you argue those txs are weakening the breed?

I'm not refusing to acknowledge it although there are anomolies in the figures which for example included Puerto Rico until 2016. I'm saying that there is no evidence that Lasix has much if anything to do with that reduction.

Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11834938_Efficacy_of_nasal_strip_and_furosemide_in_mitigating_EIPH_in_Thoroughbred_horses In conclusion, although both modalities (NS and Fur) were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. Fur was more effective than NS in constraining the severity of EIPH. The simultaneous use of both interventions appears to offer no further gain with respect to reducing EIPH.

If you mean effectiveness related Freda, most of the research was done in the early 2000s and Flair continue to claim equivalence to Lasix in their advertising primarily based on the below study. "Several investigations have also shown that the nasal strip significantly reduces EIPH severity in galloping horses, presumably by minimizing the negative airway and alvcolar pressures that impinge on the fragile blood gas barrier. In the current study, the reduction in EIPH severity was similar to that seen in previous submaximal and near-maximal exercise studies. This finding is intriguing and several explanations exist as to why the nasal strip appears to maintain its effectiveness over a range of exercise intensities…Thus, the nasal strip appears to be a viable prophylaxis for EIPH during maximal galloping and was at least as effective as furosemide in the present investigation." P. McDonough, et al., "Effect of furosemide and the equine nasal strip on exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage and time-to-fatigue in maximally exercising horses,” ECEP, 22:33, pp 1-9, January 2004 Most of the work was done with relatively small numbers and there seems to be quite a bit of individual horse variability but that is true of Lasix as well. I think a fair conclusion is the one from the study below. Kentucky Equine Research, Inc.Eight thoroughbred horses were exercised at 120% maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) by sprinting on a high-speed treadmill under the following conditions: control (C); wearing FLAIR Equine Nasal Strips (NS); medicated with furosemide (F); wearing FLAIR Equine Nasal Strips and medicated with furosemide (NS+F). Horses treated with furosemide carried weight equal to that causedby fluid loss after furosemide administration. Horses wearing FLAIR Strips showed a significant reduction of EIPH based on analysis of BAL fluid. Horses injected with furosemide showed a greater reduction in EIPH. Both VO2 and CO2 were significantly lowered in the NS and NS + FR trials over control. The researchers concluded that “the external nasal strip appears to lower the metabolic cost of supramaximal exertion in horses. So, I would say definitely effective, maybe not to the same extent as Lasix but without the side effects.

If you are opposed to the use of Lasix on racedays I presume you would support banning the therapeutic use of nasal strips on racedays as well given that both treatments are effective in mitigating EIPH? If so, would you also ban the use of blinkers given they are known to mitigate behavioural issues in some horses?

I don't agree with that writer either that the 6.5% decline between 1950 and 1975 was steady. In fact, it jumped from 10.2 to 11.3 (+11%) between 1950 and 1960 before falling from 11.3 to 10.2 (-10%) the following decade. That article which makes the supposition that the subsequent decline was to do with Lasix also argues that "When used responsibly and ethically, therapeutic medications are in the best interests of horse welfare and are a significant aid to racehorse trainers." This is a view that I do agree with. That author's abuse of the JC data is just as bad as the abuse of therapeutic drugs that he is complaining about and is just as stupid as anyone who blindlybelieves his interpretation like you seem to.

I doubt many would consider a 10% decline "relatively constant". It was relatively constant in the decade from 2009 to 2019 when Lasix was widely used. I remain unclear where there is any evidence that any of that had to do with Lasix use.