 |
| Image courtesy Lion International |
When I served in a rifle platoon a very long time ago, one of the worst insults you could offer to a fellow soldier was to refer to him as "Jack".
The term came from the phrase "F**k you Jack, I'm all right".
Essentially, any soldier going "Jack" was either selfish, stupid, or both.
Stupid, because our lives depended on each other.
Selfish, because he was putting considerations about his own well-being ahead of that of his comrades.
A good example would have been a digger who coughed, sneezed, smoked, snored or farted in an all-night ambush. Such a soldier would have been given a swift kick up the backside by an NCO (or perhaps a fellow soldier, depending on who got to him first).
That principle of collective loyalty and cooperation is fundamental to success in any undertaking where disunity is death, and it is illustrated so clearly when we look at statistics emanating from the USA, where states with high vaccination rates are suffering far fewer Covid 19 deaths than those where vaccine hesitancy is rampant.
It is almost a perfect negative correlation.
And yet we observe people of little brain and miniscule moral comprehension taking to the street in the name of "freedom" in this country. In the process, they have casually desecrated the Shrine of Remembrance.
The "freedom" they're advocating is the freedom to jeopardise the well-being of the group in favour of the selfish demands of the individual. I've blogged previously about how that glib notion has fallen in a heap with the advent of the pandemic.
We have also observed the phenomenon (relatively new to Australia) of rent seeking politicians appropriating the anger and frustration inevitably generated by the restrictions to their own ends.
This is one cultural trend that should be swiftly booted back across the Pacific from whence it came.
It is divisive, destructive and dangerous.
Comments closed.
5 comments:
If the Premier of the State openly says, at least three days straight, that the jab does not not prevent the vaccinated becoming infected, carrying and then infecting others, how does making compulsory inoculation create a safer work place?
Oh, you left out "snoring" in the list of no nos that would get you short shrift in the bush.
If the Premier of the State openly says, at least three days straight, that the jab does not not prevent the vaccinated becoming infected, carrying and then infecting others, how does making compulsory inoculation create a safer work place?
In the same way as making the wearing of seat belts compulsory creates safer travel. You can still be killed in a serious road accident, but you're a lot safer wearing belts.
In the old days, before the lunatic Right got hold of the agenda, it was called "common sense".
Latest literature review -https://maplespub.com/webroot/files/COVID-19-Vaccination-Efficacy-and-Safety-Literature-Review_1614759732.pdf
Wearing a seat belt does not prevent the collision between vehicles. It will lessen injury or perhaps defer death.
Vaccines are by definition supposed to prevent disease and give immunity to disease. Not so with this medication. There is no prevention or immunity afforded by the "vaccine" of which we speak. Once infected the vaccine may, I reiterate, may lessen the adverse effects of the disease.
In the meantime the "vaccine" may not even take or perhaps it may cause you some minor problems...anything from minor pain to acting as a catalyst to enable one of your existing ailments to develop quickly and perhaps kill you...just like the disease it is meant to "prevent" or give you immunity from.
Perhaps you should take radiation treatment for your prostate, just in case cancer pays you a visit.
Personally I will wait for the time trials to be completed rather than become a lab rat for the trial. You may on the other hand have my share if you wish.
https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report
Since the beginning of the vaccine rollout to 19 September 2021, approximately 24.8 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been given. So far, the TGA received 556 reports of death
following immunisation but on review, has found that only 9 reports of deaths were linked to immunisation. The overwhelming majority of deaths reported to the TGA following vaccination occurred in people aged 65 years and older. The deaths linked to immunisation occurred after the first dose of Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) – 8 were TTS cases and one was a case of immune thrombocytopenia (ITP).
Total adverse event reports to 19 September 2021
2.5 Reporting rate per 1000 doses
61,738 Total AEFI reports received
24,792,054 Total doses administered
36,255 Total reports for Vaxzevria
25,158 Total reports for Comirnaty
355 Total reports for brand not specified
Too bad about those afflicted...collateral damage.
There is no prevention or immunity afforded by the "vaccine" of which we speak.
No, but there is a much lower chance of being hospitalised or becoming seriously ill if vaccinated. The figures speak for themselves - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7038e1.htm?s_cid=mm7038e1_w
From that review (a few weeks ago) -
Among U.S. adults without immunocompromising conditions, vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during March 11–August 15, 2021, was higher for the Moderna vaccine (93%) than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (88%) and the Janssen vaccine (71%).
Your statement that there is "no" protection or immunity by vaccines is contradicted by reality. 93% effectiveness is a pretty good rate.
Once infected the vaccine may, I reiterate, may lessen the adverse effects of the disease. where "may" indicates 88-93%. It would a much better world if that level of certainty was available for most things.
Since the beginning of the vaccine rollout to 19 September 2021, approximately 24.8 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been given. So far, the TGA received 556 reports of death.
That's a fatality rate of 0.00224%.Those are pretty good odds.
Too bad about those afflicted...collateral damage.
You could say the same about the 712,616 who have died of Covid-19 in the USA.
I wonder how many of those would have survived had they not followed the advice of the conspiracy theorists and been vaccinated?
"Your statement that there is "no" protection or immunity by vaccines"
I didn't say that, I said, " There is no prevention or immunity afforded by the "vaccine" of which we speak. Once infected the vaccine may, I reiterate, may lessen the adverse effects of the disease." The second sentence states that the medication injected is a treatment that reduces likelihood of serious complications or death. I thought you'd understand that.
" where "may" indicates 88-93%. It would a much better world if that level of certainty was available for most things." One in ten people might think poorly of your acceptable percentage.
The WHO has its own special take on it...https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/vaccine-efficacy-effectiveness-and-protection
"You could say the same about the 712,616 who have died of Covid-19 in the USA.
I wonder how many of those would have survived had they not followed the advice of the conspiracy theorists and been vaccinated?" Relevance and accuracy of the assumption are in question.
Post a Comment