 |
| Courtesy www.statesman.com |
I found this posted in Facebook a few weeks ago, when the faux outrage about mandated vaccination first began to appear in local and overseas media.
Unfortunately, I didn't take note of the poster's identity, so can't attribute it.
Anyway, after looking at it again, I've decided that it's worth posting, as it reeks of real common sense, which trumps faux outrage every time -
Vaccination history has long been required to travel (if you have been in countries where some of those ‘old’ diseases still persist) and they’re also required when you enrol your children in most kindergartens and schools.
When I was studying in the 90s, I had to show proof that I had been vaccinated for hepatitis B too. We can be stopped by police at anytime and asked to submit to a test to prove that we are not intoxicated and we carry licences to prove that we have passed our driving test, library cards, club cards, reward point cards, train/bus passes, credit cards etc.
All of these cards are required to prove something at different times and places, and many of them track where we go, what we buy etc. (For the insidious purpose of making us buy more of the same usually too). Not to mention phones which record where we go (by GPS tracker no less), our heart rate, our bank balance, where we shop, what we listen to, what we read, what we look at online etc., AND we live with CCTV pretty much everywhere these days.
So, we have not lived in a ‘free’ world for a long time, and I personally, don’t really have a problem with carrying a card which shows that I’m happy to help keep my community safe and limit my use of hospital resources should I happen to get sick.
I’m just really grateful that I live in a country that can afford to vaccinate everyone for free, and also that I’m not living in Afghanistan or any other country at war (civil or otherwise).
There are a huge number of people out there who are living through traumatic experiences every day and experience limitations on their rights and freedoms that we cannot even begin to imagine. I imagine that they would be astounded that we’re kicking up a fuss about government regulations which are being put in place to protect our lives and limit the spread of illness.
Comments closed.
33 comments:
When the trial is completed and the long term effects evaluated, may be the time to decide whether or not to submit to the inoculation. Claims that this is a "vaccine", which does not give immunity as the definition would require, are made each day by Premiers, health Officers and the Prime Minister. The claims that it acts as a medication to alleviate symptoms are also attested to by those pushing the unproven drug onto the people of this country. There is no protection from catching, carrying or infecting others, yet we are expected to risk our lives by being injected with what is obviously not a safe, nor proven drug.
TGA
Reports of death in people who have been vaccinated
Large scale vaccination means that coincidentally some people will experience a new illness or die within a few days or weeks of vaccination.
The TGA reviews all deaths reported in people who have been vaccinated. As the number of vaccinated people has increased, so has reporting of fatal events with a coincidental association with vaccination. This does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.
Since the beginning of the vaccine rollout to 10 October 2021, over 30.7 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been given. So far, the TGA has found 9 reports of death that were linked to immunisation from 597 reports received and reviewed. 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 AEFI reports received
Total doses administered...30,706,847
Total reports for Vaxzevria...38,338
Total reports for Comirnaty...30,533
Total reports for Spikevax...217
To 10 October 2021, the total number of adverse event reports received where the brand of the COVID-19 vaccine was not specified was 372.
There is no protection from catching, carrying or infecting others, yet we are expected to risk our lives by being injected with what is obviously not a safe, nor proven drug.
Let's unpack that statement.
Here's an abstract from a this July 9th study -https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01446-y
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to be a global health concern. The mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine was reported to have an efficacy of 94.1% at preventing symptomatic COVID-19 due to infection with ‘wild-type’ variants in a randomized clinical trial. Here, we assess the real-world effectiveness of this vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, specifically B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and B.1.351 (Beta), in Qatar, a population that comprises mainly working-age adults, using a matched test-negative, case-control study design. We show that vaccine effectiveness was negligible for 2 weeks after the first dose, but increased rapidly in the third and fourth weeks immediately before administration of a second dose. Effectiveness against B.1.1.7 infection was 88.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 83.7–91.5%) ≥14 days after the first dose but before the second dose, and was 100% (95% CI: 91.8–100.0%) ≥14 days after the second dose. Analogous effectiveness against B.1.351 infection was 61.3% after the first dose (95% CI: 56.5–65.5%) and 96.4% after the second dose (95% CI: 91.9–98.7%). Effectiveness against any severe, critical or fatal COVID-19 disease due to any SARS-CoV-2 infection (predominantly B.1.1.7 and B.1.351) was 81.6% (95% CI: 71.0–88.8%) and 95.7% (95% CI: 73.4–99.9%) after the first and second dose, respectively. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is highly effective against B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 infections, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic, and against any COVID-19 hospitalization and death, even after a single dose.
Similar results have emerged from studies of other Covid vaccines. A summary -https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00592-1Taken together, the results show that where vaccine effectiveness data have been published, the findings are broadly consistent with efficacy data determined from clinical trials. Given the range of immune responses that are generated by different vaccine platforms, it will be essential to further understand what immune mechanism provides protection in each of these cases.
Large scale vaccination means that coincidentally some people will experience a new illness or die within a few days or weeks of vaccination.
True. Note my bolding.
Those are pretty good odds. The rate of linked deaths is 0.00002932% on the basis of the figures you supplied.
Might be better if you gave quotes from sources that report Government sources. Try using the deaths recorded as 600 and not the nine after the numbers have been sanitised.
Of course it is "coincidentally" in the case of "following vaccination", but in the case of following infection with the dreaded covid any means of death is included in covid deaths where the doctor mentions covid on the death certificate and whether it is primary cause or not. Does that not strike you as unusual Bobby?
I'm assuming you're referring to this - So far, the TGA has found 9 reports of death that were linked to immunisation from 597 reports received and reviewed.
Let's do that and see what difference it makes to the odds of a fatal outcome from vaccination. It actually takes it from 0.00002932% to 0.00194419% - still pretty good odds.
As for "sources". I learned long ago as a student of history that primary sources (in this case peer reviewed research papers) are the only sources that can be trusted. Government sources are by definition not primary sources as they are decanted through a political filter.
You certainly didn't learn anything about peer reviewed outcomes...eg. global warming.
Check out how the magic 97% came about. And you agree that Govt sources are not to be trusted...very good Bob. That was my point in explaining how the numbers are collated.
If I am happy to accept the risk of firstly catching covid and then being one of the miniscule number of deaths actually caused by this disease, why should I be forced to take an unproven drug that immediately puts me at risk of death or serious injury in order to reduce the symptoms of a disease I may not contract and offers no immunity to catching the disease anyway? Feel free to be jabbed, but why should my life be affected by people with skin in the game of selling meds that only reduce symptoms and the producers and pushers are exempt from wrong doing should the human trials prove flawed?
Working the numbers if you don't get vaxed versus you catch covid, then you stand to die from the vax at a rate half that of the disease. Pretty good odds if you actually catch the disease. How does a healthy person who is not vaccinated pose a risk to a vaccinated person?
Better yet who is the greater risk if a vaccinated person has the disease and can socialise at will or, a person who is unvaccinated and ill and who is not permitted to socialise?
Reaching the target of 100% vaxed means all positives, hospitalisations, ICU bed users and deaths will be fully vaccinated people.
You certainly didn't learn anything about peer reviewed outcomes...eg. global warming.
Really? -https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Better yet who is the greater risk if a vaccinated person has the disease and can socialise at will or, a person who is unvaccinated and ill and who is not permitted to socialise?
Bizarre question. Somebody "unvaccinated and ill" wouldn't be socialising.
Here's another question - How does a healthy person who is vaccinated pose a risk to an unvaccinated person?
Not bizarre at all, if you don't understand just say so.
"Somebody "unvaccinated and ill" wouldn't be socialising." So answer the question... who is the greater risk to society, assuming the unvaccinated person obeys the rules?
I note there is no comment on...
"Reaching the target of 100% vaxed means all positives, hospitalisations, ICU bed users and deaths will be fully vaccinated people."
My comment using global warming as an example was directed at peer review as scientific method. Read on...
Mike Jonas
, M.A. Mathematics, Oxford University, UK
The "97% of scientists" originated in a 2009 paper "Examining the Consensus on Climate Change" by Peter Doran and Margaret Zimmerman. They sent out a survey to more than 10,000 scientists, asking the two questions:
When compared with pre‐1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
They received 3,146 replies. The entire survey hinges on how recipients interpret "significant". Even though many would consider something like 5 to 10% to be "significanf", and even many "sceptics" would answer "yes" to both questions, Doran and Zimmerman obviously were not satisfied with the responses, because they chose to eliminate all but 79 of the responses in an obvious manipulation (bear in mind that they had themselves chosen the original recipients for the survey). Of those 79, 76 - 97% - answered "yes" to both questions. It is an egregious abuse of a survey and of statistics. It has of course been made even worse by the "bait and switch" tactic of asking one question ("significant contributing factor") and then interpreting it differently ("97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming"). In other words, they went from "significant" to effectively "total".
If I am happy to accept the risk of firstly catching covid and then being one of the miniscule number of deaths actually caused by this disease, why should I be forced to take an unproven drug that immediately puts me at risk of death or serious injury in order to reduce the symptoms of a disease I may not contract and offers no immunity to catching the disease anyway? Feel free to be jabbed, but why should my life be affected by people with skin in the game of selling meds that only reduce symptoms and the producers and pushers are exempt from wrong doing should the human trials prove flawed?
And here is another review -https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/107/27/12107.full.pdf
The abstract -
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Generally, I agree that scientific consensus is not necessarily an argument supporting AGW. Similarly, scepticism is not an argument against it. The only consideration should be the data, and that is freely available - check the NASA temperature graph that I post above.
Mike Jonas is interesting. He has given up arguing that AGM isn't real. Instead, he now argues that it will be good for the planet, and whilst he doesn't dispute that global temperatures are rising, he claims that a great deal of the rise is caused by factors that aren't man made.
By the way, he is a mathematician, not a climate scientist, and if you check his on-line credentials, you'll note he's not a highly qualified one at that. It's unusual to find a scientist commenting in the public domain as often as he does, without a doctorate in the discipline he alleges to have expertise in.
If I am happy to accept the risk of firstly catching covid and then being one of the miniscule (sic) number of deaths actually caused by this disease,
I don't believe the number of deaths in the USA (735,373) the UK (139,444) and India (453, 042) are minuscule.
why should I be forced to take an unproven drug that immediately puts me at risk of death or serious injury in order to reduce the symptoms of a disease I may not contract and offers no immunity to catching the disease anyway?
First up, nobody is forcing you. The 86% of Australians who have had their first dose as this is written weren't forced. They used their common sense to take a step designed to protect themselves and the community. It's this second aspect (protecting the community) that is a problem for some. They have no concern for the community as a whole, only for themselves. They're the crew who go out and fill a shopping trolley with toilet paper when a lockdown is called. It's a combination of ignorance and selfishness.
By the way, you haven't challenged the fact that the rate of vaccine linked (not necessarily caused) deaths is 0.00002932%.
Being vaccinated is a bit like wearing a seat belt in your car, it won't prevent death and serious injury in every circumstance, but it will help in most. "Every" is never the enemy of "most", unless you indulge in the same (completely un-mathematical) logic as Mike Jonas.
"deaths in the USA" ...I like to keep my references to what may affect me localised.
The Mike Jonas comment I gave you to research was to do with the method of coming to a consensus that was implemented to push the "97% of climate scientists agree" line...not his views on climate change. As he is a mathematician he is eminently qualified to comment on the method used to reach a mathematical conclusion.
"It's unusual to find a scientist commenting in the public domain as often as he does, without a doctorate in the discipline he alleges to have expertise in." Does the name Flannery ring a bell?
"First up, nobody is forcing you. The 86% of Australians who have had their first dose as this is written weren't forced." You should rethink that one...coercion, whether direct or indirect, is still coercion. The Government creates a situation where employers are fined for employing unvaccinated personnel and business people are fined for having dealings with unvaccinated clients, and you think that is not forcing people to have the jab to enable them to live a normal life. Your values have changed since you last commented on being forced to join the Army and then being forced to take a trip in South East Asia. You had choices, and because you didn't like the alternatives you undertook a couple of years of unpleasantness. Have we had a change of heart? Is it now okay to coerce even a minority to do something they would not otherwise consider...something that may directly cause serious injury or death to treat a disease they may never get, or perhaps be naturally immune to.
Oh, the challenge...612 deaths reported following the jab/32654000 jabs is 0.002%
Your NASA piece covers a couple of hundred years, Bobby...more research required, since the Earth has had a slightly longer existence and has been much hotter during that time. That is what the science tells us, even though records only show back to early 1800s.
I digress...mentioning the weather was an example of pointing out where the collection of peer reviewed materials in a way to ensure the outcome is hardly kosher, but to then push that result in the name of science is terribly deceitful. Don't you agree?
As a headmaster and educated person have you noticed how the use of numbers and percentages can effect the perceptions of those being informed of dire outcomes?
Bad analogy Bob...what are the numbers, percentages or even rumours of someone being seriously injured or dying as a result of the act fastening a seatbelt? Even the record keepers of TGA accept that the jab has killed 9 of the 612 reported deaths.
I like to keep my references to what may affect me localised.
Let's go local, then -https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/australia-s-covid-19-response-may-have-saved-more
Does the name Flannery ring a bell?
Sure does, his doctoral studies involved the evolution of kangaroos and related animals, and in 1985 he took part in the first discovery of Australian mammal fossils from the Cretaceous Period, which were more than 80 million years older than previously known specimens. It was these studies of the history of the ancient inhabitants of the planet that helped him understand that something novel and perilous was happening. Government creates a situation Here we go again - more conspiracy theories. The virus was not created by government.
Is it now okay to coerce even a minority to do something they would not otherwise consider...something that may directly cause serious injury or death Like wearing a seat belt?
.612 deaths reported following the jab/32654000 jabs is 0.002% And has been pointed out above - pretty good odds. As a headmaster and educated man I was never a "headmaster" - A principal, perhaps. That term went out with button up boots.
"The University of Sydney-led research, published by the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA), is based on modelling that used the UK’s COVID-19 response as a template."...We all know how modelling works, Bob. A crystal ball based on someone else's results and applied per capita. That didn't work too well with global warming either. Psychiatry works in a similar fashion...supposition.
Re Flannery...does he have a doctorate in the field he is now most famous for having a lot to say? Ans. No. So you agree with my example a of "a scientist commenting in the public domain as often as he does, without a doctorate in the discipline he alleges to have expertise in".
"The virus was not created by government." I didn't say it was Bob. A virus is not a "situation". The situation they created is one where instead of legislating the "mandate" to have everyone jabbed, they legislated to fine business owners and employers who deal with customers and employees who have not been jabbed. It is called delegation of powers so that the Government can't be said to be discriminating directly, or acting in opposition to what they stated. You know, having the blame laid at the feet of employers and business owners.
"something that may directly cause serious injury or death Like wearing a seat belt?
Are you saying seat belts cause serious injury or death? If you are it seems to be at odds with the reason for wearing one. The act of strapping up, which is what I mentioned, won't kill you. Oh you didn't comment on that.
"612 deaths reported following the jab/32654000 jabs is 0.002%" was my reply to your comment "By the way, you haven't challenged the fact that the rate of vaccine linked (not necessarily caused) deaths is 0.00002932%." Were you trying to baffle me with bullshit by adding a couple of zeros? Or were you attempting to make me look foolish? Didn't work, and I know it had been pointed out above. Chances of surviving a covid infection are pretty good too, without taking medication. With medication that has been banned for use in Australia for covid treatment chances are reduced more. Strange that those meds are still available for other treatments.
Care to comment? Coercion, whether direct or indirect, is still coercion.The Government creates a situation (previously discussed) and you think that is not forcing people to have the jab to enable them to live a normal life. Your values have changed since you last commented on being forced to join the Army and then being forced to take a trip in South East Asia. You had choices, and because you didn't like the alternatives you undertook a couple of years of unpleasantness. Have we had a change of heart? Is it now okay to coerce an entire population (yes they are going after the kids too) to do something they would not otherwise consider...something that may directly cause serious injury or death to treat a disease they may never get, or perhaps be naturally immune to.
"headmaster" - principal," A headmaster by any other name is still a headmaster...or a teacher who carries out administrative duties.
We all know how modelling works, Bob. A crystal ball based on someone else's results and applied per capita.
You actually don't. Modelling is an essential concept that has been used for over a century in a range of disciplines including mathematics, computing and engineering. It is reliable and accurate providing good quality data is applied to the model. I assume you're OK with driving over road bridges and using lifts in high-rise buildings. If so, you're content with modelling as a prediction strategy.
Re Flannery...does he have a doctorate in the field he is now most famous for having a lot to say? At least he has a doctorate in a relevant field of science, which is more than can be said for old mate Jonas.
You know, having the blame laid at the feet of employers and business owners. Business owners and employers are required by law to provide safe workplaces. Vaccination facilitates this. The process of delegation of this particular responsibility has been around since Adam played full back for Jerusalem, but the usual suspects seemed quite OK with it until they began to read the Glibertarian rubbish that seeps across the Pacific from the country which has 2268 deaths per million from Covid compared with Australia's 64.
"By the way, you haven't challenged the fact that the rate of vaccine linked (not necessarily caused) deaths is 0.00002932%." There's no point in challenging a statement that shows how save the vaccinations are.
Chances of surviving a covid infection are pretty good too
And...?
Have we had a change of heart? I haven't - you may have.
Using the royal plural is always dodgy.
something that may directly cause serious injury or death to treat a disease they may never get, or perhaps be naturally immune to.
Same principle applies to Mumps, Measles, Pertussis, Diphtheria, and Polio, but you don't hear squeals of outrage about those vaccines.
A headmaster by any other name is still a headmaster
Unless the person happens to be female. Back in the day when the term was used, there were no female heads of school, so the terminology was updated when women began to be appointed to these positions. Some people still haven't caught up...
"old mate Jonas" came up in conversation on the compilation of mathematical data and peer group lies and results being predetermined. He has the quals. I don't really care if he has opinions on other things not related. As a Mathematician he is qualified to comment on the method involved.
Modelling on "hard fact" based sources is a little different to taking a guess at the weather, which cannot from one day to the next be predicted accurately and consistently. If you can't do it short term there is no way you can do it long term with the variables in play. Even satelites watching it live appear of little use.
"Vaccination facilitates this" Please explain how that works when even the vaccinated get infected, carry it and infect others. There is no need to have an un-vaccinated person in the mix. On the other hand one vaccinated person with the disease in a room full of un-vaccinated persons is a real problem and vice versa ...there is no immunity although politicians and health officers and media people seem to do ok.
I haven't driven over a bridge in 2 years and haven't been in a high rise building in over ten years.
"something that may directly cause serious injury or death to treat a disease they may never get, or perhaps be naturally immune to.
Same principle applies to Mumps, Measles, Pertussis, Diphtheria, and Polio, but you don't hear squeals of outrage about those vaccines"
Nice try bobby..but what I said was..."Is it now okay to coerce an entire population (yes they are going after the kids too) to do something they would not otherwise consider...something that may directly cause serious injury or death to treat a disease they may never get, or perhaps be naturally immune to?" Don't cut the question in half and then wander off at a tangent. Any answer...I hear crickets chirping.
"612 deaths reported following the jab/32654000 jabs is 0.002%" was my reply to your comment "By the way, you haven't challenged the fact that the rate of vaccine linked (not necessarily caused) deaths is 0.00002932%." Were you trying to baffle me with bullshit by adding a couple of zeros? And then you come up with a reply to your own incorrect comment saying "There's no point in challenging a statement that shows how save (safe) the vaccinations are" You are truly losing it old feller.
"Chances of surviving a covid infection are pretty good too
And...?" so, as you appear to agree, why should someone who chooses the odds for the covid be considered a danger to someone who chooses the odds for the vaccine, bearing in mind that both parties can be infected and infect others?
"Same principle applies to Mumps, Measles, Pertussis, Diphtheria, and Polio, but you don't hear squeals of outrage about those vaccines." Those vaccines were long term trialled before approval for human use and deaths attributable to them in the short and long term were a fraction of what is attributed to the Covid vax in the time it has been in use. I am not anti but I want to wait until you guinea pigs prove the vax to okay for me. I have had everything else they tossed around and the flu vax put me in bed two years running.
"Have we had a change of heart? I haven't.. it is painfully obvious you have. What was terrible for you then is ok for the whole population now.
Headmistress was bandied about a bit Robert and is still understood to be...
"headmistress
hĕd′mĭs″trĭs
noun
A woman who is the principal of a school, usually a private school.
A female school principal.
a woman headmaster"
A woman headmaster how about that.
Headmaster is still used, bobby even though you believe it to be a denigrating term.
Brings back memories of Jimmy Edwards. Is that what you hate?
Modelling on "hard fact" based sources is a little different to taking a guess at the weather, which cannot from one day to the next be predicted accurately and consistently.
The issue is the climate, not the weather. The measurements made by climate observers worldwide (including NASA) are fact based and consistent. They are not "guesses".
Please explain how that works when even the vaccinated get infected, carry it and infect others.
The data shows that vaccinated people carry less viral load and are less likely to infect others. You're stuck in the old "if it doesn't always work, it shouldn't happen at all" red herring. That has whiskers on it and defies logic.
something that may directly cause serious injury or death
Once again, you're ignoring the statistics. You're up that river in Egypt.
so, as you appear to agree, why should someone who chooses the odds for the covid be considered a danger to someone who chooses the odds for the vaccine What you're ignoring (again), as a true Glibertarian, is that the decision is not only about you, but also about the community of which you're a member. This is the kind of selfish disregard responsible for the US statistics I have already noted. It is simply dangerous because it kills people.
Those vaccines were long term trialled before approval for human use and deaths attributable to them in the short and long term were a fraction of what is attributed to the Covid vax in the time it has been in use.
That's quite wrong. Have a lot at this website for reporting on one of the most popular and effective vaccines in use today, the triple antigen shot given to all children worldwide. If you scroll down to the header "death" you'll notice that it occurs as an adverse reaction in 0.008% of cases, compared to 0.002% for Covid vaccines. These are American figures, but similar results are availabe in Oz if you interrogate the reporting system -https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=122203FBBFC297263C23345F35F7
If you think the numbers are similar in US and Australia are similar ....supply a link to Australian fuigures. You always fall back on the yanks for signs of adverse findings...anyone would think you have a dislike for Americans.
"What you're ignoring is that the decision is not only about you, but also about the community of which you're a member." Now that sounds like something you heard from those selling the meds. Explain how my decision not to be vaccinated in any way affects the rest of the community in relation to health.
The data shows that vaccinated people carry less viral load and are less likely to infect others. At least you agree with the premiers and health officials who fail to mention what you claim about "less likely". You obviously have better sources, but agree on...can still be infected and can pass it on to others. The TGA says you can also be seriously injured or die as a result or with the vaccination having been administered.
"The measurements made by climate observers worldwide (including NASA) are fact based and consistent" with past occurrences that cannot with accuracy and consistency be ensured to re-occur, due to the variables in play.
" They are not "guesses" Really? a calculated guess is still a guess and they are not set in stone and are questioned by others of or equal in qualifications. Anyway my comment was in relation to peer reviews and the method used to arrive at 97% bs re the Weather was merely an example but it gave you a way to step sideways and ignore context, as usual.
Once again...how is your lovely wife? I am honestly concerned, having been through similar circumstances. I would not wish what we went through on anyone. Just say none of your business and I will refrain from asking and continue to stir the pot.
You write Explain how my decision not to be vaccinated in any way affects the rest of the community in relation to health.
Because unvaccinated individuals are both more likely to contract the virus and pass it on to others. Making a decision not be be vaccinated contributes to its transmission in the community, which in turns means more people will get ill, and some will die. There is a very clear inverse relationship between vaccination rates and infection rates - health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html
You write At least you agree with the premiers and health officials who fail to mention what you claim about "less likely".
Except they do mention this - See on the QHealth website- Even though the COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to be very effective there is still a chance you may get COVID-19. No vaccine is 100% effective. From the Q Health website https://www.qld.gov.au/health/conditions/health-alerts/coronavirus-covid-19/protect-yourself-others/covid-19-vaccine/about/vaccine-effectiveness
Your use of both misinformation and disinformation is a threat to the health of those around you, if they are silly enough to believe it. The consequences of this are statistically measurable. In the USA, where disinformation and misinformation on both social media and Right Wing mainstream media is rife, the deaths from Covid are running at 2302 per million. In Australia, it sits at 66 per million as this is written. That's 34 times the Australian rate. Resisting vaccination, for whatever reason, sets you up as a prime candidate for a Darwin award. If the cap fits...
"Even though the COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to be very effective there is still a chance you may get COVID-19. No vaccine is 100% effective. From the Q Health website" where are the words that indicate less likely. The Premiers and health officials state quire clearly in their pressers that the the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the disease and place emphasis on what they say. Data from places you like to quote (overseas) clearly points this out.
Chances of catching covid so far in two years of raging Pandemic in Australia...166,000/27,000,000 or 0.6%. Deaths with, or related to but not necessarily caused by covid, per population... 0.0063%. Deaths per covid positive "diagnoses"... 1.024% (1700/166000). They are the stats Bobby.
https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-case-numbers-and-statistics#covid19-summary-statistics
I know you do not like it but that is the reality. There are now 629 reports of death following vaccinations.
https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-28-10-2021
I don't endanger anyone Booby. The family are so frightened by what they read and see and the restrictions on what they can do, the majority have copped the bs and been jabbed. I merely put questions of logic to them based on what is out in the public domain and garnered from government sources. The blank looks I get and lack of answers indicate that they have not done the homework...being a teacher, you know what I mean. I sincerely hope there is no reason to regret their decisions. People I know and bump into whilst shopping call this bs. I do not know whether they have done the homework, but they are on the money. They still must behave as the Government instructs them, according to the best available medical advice, that the vaccine does not give immunity but will lessen the effects of the disease should they be infected.
Did you know that the government eased restrictions on persons entering Australia in relation to Tuberculosis, a highly infectious air borne disease with a high fatality rate
Most infections show no symptoms, in which case it is known as latent tuberculosis. About 10% of latent infections progress to active disease which, if left untreated, kills about half of those affected. Now what is the likelihood of death if you are infected with covid and left untreated?
Once again...how is your lovely wife? I am honestly concerned, having been through similar circumstances. I would not wish what we went through on anyone. Just say none of your business and I will refrain from asking and continue to stir the pot. Is this another question that frightens you Robert?
Chances of catching covid so far in two years of raging Pandemic in Australia...166,000/27,000,000 or 0.6%.
Which is an indication of how well it was managed here, and how much better than almost everywhere else. If the deaths per million were the same as they are in the USA, we would have lost over 50,000 Aussies so far.
I don't endanger anyone
You do, if you refuse vaccination without a valid medical reason, in exactly the same way as a digger snoring in an ambush endangers everyone in the platoon.
The blank looks I get and lack of answers indicate that they have not done the homework...being a teacher, you know what I mean.
It has nothing to do with being a teacher. It has everything to do with logic and common sense.
the vaccine does not give immunity but will lessen the effects of the disease should they be infected
Which is precisely what I posted above from the QHealth website.
Here is some very recent case-study controlled research targeting the likelihood of break-through infections (those who caught the virus after vaccination). From the findings - Between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021, 1 240 009 COVID Symptom Study app users reported a first vaccine dose, of whom 6030 (0·5%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 1), and 971 504 reported a second dose, of whom 2370 (0·2%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 2). Those are pretty good odds.
Source -https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext
"we would have lost over 50,000 Aussies so far." I believe the health officer of Qld was prepared for that in Qld alone. Didn't happen. Would, could, should, may and might when used in a sentence are indicative of an occurrence that has not taken place.
"You do, if you refuse vaccination without a valid medical reason, in exactly the same way as a digger snoring in an ambush endangers everyone in the platoon." Hardly a good analogy Bob.
Delaying the decision of whether to vaccinate or not, until such time as the trial is complete, is not refusing vaccination. That refusal may occur when the information has been compiled dependent on the information available.
If I am not unwell I am a danger to no-one, in relation to an infectious disease. You can't be infected by anyone who is not infected, Bob. In the same way that a vaccinated person who does not have covid cannot infect anyone else. The infected, either vaccinated or un-vaccinated, are a danger to all. The snoring of a digger presents an obvious danger to the 29 other blokes, a ginger beer and F.O. and perhaps a bushman scout.
Don't get catty Robby, "It has nothing to do with being a teacher". That was a remark indicating that you would be naturally familiar with the reactions of students or anyone else for that matter. Many are not able to call on that instinct. Common sense is waning these days. Perhaps "wanting" would have been a better word.
"the vaccine does not give immunity which is precisely what I posted"...I am glad you agree. Pretty good odds of survival without the serum also...99.98%. If you are fortunate and like the huge majority of the population who do not contract the disease your chances of surviving the dreaded "pandemic" are astounding.
629 dead after serum injection (they are the ones reported). Percentages aside, you probably wouldn't be happy if one of the 629 was a near relative or good friend.
My daughter-in-law's father felt compelled for freedoms sake to take on board the Ast.Zen version of the serum. Within a week of no.2 he ended up with a brain bleed and was necessarily flown from regional Vic to Melbourne where moves were made to drain his skull to avoid the otherwise inevitable pressure on the brain and death. He survived. Denials were instantly made that the clotting and bleed were in no way connected to the serum. A fit 75 yr old farmer who was still handling horses and driving a sulky in competitive racing. He was very fortunate. Had this occurred following a covid positive, he would have been immediately claimed as a victim of covid. My daughter had the jab to enable freedom, not for health reasons. She developed a rash similar to bruising across shoulders and neck. She was unaware, due to lack of information, that she should have immediately sought medical assistance. Fortunately so far, the rash went away and there have been no obvious problems outside muscle soreness . It appears that collateral damage is no longer acceptable in warfare but is acceptable in the application of unproven medicines on civilians in the general population, along with unheard of restrictions to freedom of movement within our own country and destruction of businesses and hence employment. This is not about health...in my opinion.
I think we have done this to death and will have to agree to disagree on the rights to decide whether to be medicated, and to be treated as a high risk to others, when perfectly healthy. Speaking of health...How is your lovely wife travelling? Not answering a civil question merely indicates your own poor character. ell me to mind my own business...then at least I will know you are suffering from the emotional turmoil associated with concern for a loved one. Even though I enjoy stirring you up a bit, I am actually concerned for both of you.
until such time as the trial is complete
All vaccines were trialled. My daughter, before she returned from the UK, participated in the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trials as a volunteer. They are safe, and have about the same ratio of side effects as other widely used vaccines -https://covid-19.geneticalliance.org.uk/news/updated-covid-19-vaccination-guidance/?gclid=CjwKCAjw2vOLBhBPEiwAjEeK9oeqyIuJrxMkBibfnKWlI1yBLPh2YC-iUyTw6mXqlixSxPiu0ggOKBoCSdsQAvD_BwE
The infected, either vaccinated or un-vaccinated, are a danger to all. Vaccinated individuals are less likely to transmit the virus and are therefore less of a danger to all.
My daughter-in-law's father....
Anecdotes aren't evidence. I have a large extended family, some of whom work in the medical sector. All have been vaccinated. The worst side effect any of them suffered was a sore arm. My brother, who works as a medical registrar across two senior care facilities with hundreds of patients, is very vocal in his support for vaccination. He is aware of the threat the virus presents to clients and staff, and by extension, to his family.
I think we have done this to death and will have to agree to disagree on the rights to decide whether to be medicated, and to be treated as a high risk to others, when perfectly healthy.
There are another set of rights to consider, those concerned with the right of vulnerable individuals to be protected. You have a moral and social responsibility to protect those around you, even though you may enter into a very small risk to do so.
Your continual references to my wife may be well-intentioned, but I think they have more to do with your issues than mine. She is fine, and in exactly the same situation as anyone else who has come through a course of cancer treatment, that of close monitoring for a number of years.
"She is fine" I am truly glad to read that, Bobby. That wasn't hard, was it?
"Your continual references to my wife may be well-intentioned, but I think they have more to do with your issues than mine." What possible issues could I have when asking an empathetic question in relation to your wife? Your failure to address the question on a number of occasions, even when reminded, indicate that you have a few "issues" relating to your current situation.
"Anecdotes aren't evidence." Nice try...evidence of occurrences is accepted as evidence by courts, if given first hand. In criminal proceedings evidence by a copper even when he is not privy to the actual occurrence, is acceptable in certain circumstances also.
"I have a large extended family, some of whom work in the medical sector. All have been vaccinated. The worst side effect any of them suffered was a sore arm. My brother, who works as a medical registrar across two senior care facilities with hundreds of patients, is very vocal in his support for vaccination. He is aware of the threat the virus presents to clients and staff, and by extension, to his family. I guess your examples, anecdotal as they are are acceptable as evidence but my examples are not....hmmmmm hypocrasy or what.
"There are another set of rights to consider, those concerned with the right of vulnerable individuals to be protected. You have a moral and social responsibility to protect those around you, even though you may enter into a very small risk to do so"
If I am not infected, Bobby, then I pose no risk to anybody, not a very small risk as you pretend. That is a fact you are unable to come to grips with, but you expect me to place my health in jeopardy by taking a serum that has not been trialed long term. You may well be happy with the short term results, whereas I am not. Do you think someone in jeopardy of losing their job is likely to speak ill of a treatment they have been coerced into taking. Think about it. I know two doctors who stated to me that the only reason they got jabbed was so they didn't lose their lifelong chosen vocation after years of study. I know a few nurses and ambos and coppers as well.
Give your wife all possible support and use the opportunity to become even closer.
https://www.irishpost.com/news/waterford-has-irelands-second-highest-covid-19-incidence-rate-despite-fact-99-7-of-residents-are-fully-vaccinated-222363
You should have read the whole report> From your link -
Last month, it emerged that Co. Monaghan had the lowest vaccine uptake of any county in Ireland, and simultaneously had the country's worst 14-day incidence rate.
If I am not infected, Bobby, then I pose no risk to anybody, not a very small risk as you pretend.
Unvaccinated individuals, as members of a population in which the virus can reproduce, are always a risk. Vaccination lowers that risk.
Read all the information on this site, which is concerned only with patient safety - https://patientsafetymovement.org/helpful-coronavirus-covid-19-resources/covid-19-vaccine-information/
"Unvaccinated individuals, as members of a population in which the virus can reproduce, are always a risk. Vaccination lowers that risk." That seems to be the standard vacuous reply we get when we ask a simple question of people supposedly educated enough to give a straight answer. Don't just claim it, Bobby...explain what you claim. Point out how a healthy and fit person who has not been jabbed is a risk to the population at large. Even the other un-vaccinated persons are not at risk from said person, let alone the bullet proof vaccinated members of the population.
Lot of reading to go through the site Bobby, be more specific...you know, show me where it says that a healthy bu un-vaccinated person is a direct threat to someone (without getting him angry).
Not many immunologists or specialists in vaccines or viruses involved in staffing the boards. The founders are a family concern. Certainly seems to be education based site with a lot of people qualified and able to put you to sleep.
Oh, I forgot...."Vaccinated" individuals as members of a population in which Covid-19, the virus, can produce are always a greater risk. The reason is that they can be infected and infect others and are permitted freedoms no longer available to non-vaccinated individuals. Next time you attend a venue where only the vaccinated are welcome you should remember that. Should you get infected it will be from someone who was vaccinated that passed it to you.
Certainly seems to be education based site
Which is why I linked it.
Ignorance is no excuse for misinformation.
The reason is that they can be infected and infect others and are permitted freedoms no longer available to non-vaccinated individuals
I've seen some circuitous" reasoning" in my time, but this takes the cake....
Post a Comment