Professional VCDS User
- Jun 12, 2015
- Reaction score
- Nottingham, England
- VCDS Serial number
Dave: that's exactly the point - well said!!Personally I want the risk of me being infected by a medical practitioner to be minimised, but IMHO compulsion is never right so my suggestion is that medical practitioners should be required to reveal to their patients whether they have been fully vaccinated and for the patient to have to right to choose to be treated by another practitioner if they are unhappy with the vaccination state of the practitioner - this would retain the right of choice for both practitioner and patient.
Uhm, no. There's NO correlation between levels of vaccination and the spread of COVID. Here's an analysis on of the data from 68 countries and 2947 counties in the USA:Covid vaccinations work and are very effective at reducing infections, [...]
So lets stop debating that question unless you are prepared to sit down and do true statistically valid analysis and not quote newspaper headlines based on random variation in carefully selected data
The inverse correlation between the coercive "NPI" measures that were taken (that I've loudly opposed all along) and the excess mortality. Sweden had almost none.I don't want to make any wrong assumptions... what do YOU think is significant about that graph? What's #awkward about it?
I'm not sure of the source, but since you seem to have accepted it as credible, we're going to be talking about it a lot.
hmmm......... from NewScientistUhm, no. There's NO correlation between levels of vaccination and the spread of COVID. Here's an analysis on of the data from 68 countries and 2947 counties in the USA:
I've never understood this way of reasoning!Most "newspapers" would rather you didn't know this.
Uwe: With due respect for someone whose intellect and business acumen I greatly admire - I'm flabbergasted by your reasoning!! So what?Perhaps because they, like most of the other traditional media, are "Brought to you by Pfizer"?
Again Uwe, I agree 100% with the construct that the hard won rights of citizens in democratic societies are sacrosanct and every diminution of personal freedom warrants proper justification. Even you must acknowledge that in the situation where a society is threatened by an infection that is spread by human contact and where vaccination is used as the means of herd immunity, it's necessary and its reasonable for those seeking to enjoy the benefits of that society to be ALL vaccinated?Probably. And that means things are by no means certain, yet some people wish to make their position mandatory for everyone...
Right, and a cardinal rule is, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", especially when you're close to starvation, which much of the "old" media is. Now go look at just how how much of their advertising revenue comes from the pharma industry, with Pfizer leading the pack, and then perhaps you'll begin understand why they won't run stories that counter the pharma-approved narrative; they simply can't afford to lose that revenue.Of course EVERY news service in EVERY city in EVERY country on this fragile blue planet is funded through advertisements.
I don't accept either of the premises in this question.Even you must acknowledge that in the situation where a society is threatened by an infection that is spread by human contact and where vaccination is used as the means of herd immunity, it's necessary and its reasonable for those seeking to enjoy the benefits of that society to be ALL vaccinated?
If you don't believe this, then you are advocating that the right of an individual to choose not to be vaccinated (and to still enjoy the benefits of the community) transcends the rights of everyone else in the community to pursue a semblance of normality!
Oh my goodness - Shirley you aren't serious?Right, and a cardinal rule is, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", especially when you're close to starvation, which much of the "old" media is. Now go look at just how how much of their advertising revenue comes from the pharma industry, with Pfizer leading the pack, and then perhaps you'll begin understand why they won't run stories that counter the pharma-approved narrative; they simply can't afford to lose that revenue.
Not "every", but for the most widely disseminated "mainstream" media outlets, including the bigger social media outlets, it certainly does mean something like that.The simple prospect of "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" doesn't mean that EVERY (or most) editor in EVERY (or most) newspaper in EVERY (or most) city in EVERY (or most) part of this planet has abandoned his/her moral compass in favor of capitalist yoke of the evil puppet-masters!
No, there are plenty of alternate sources that haven't abandoned their moral compass, but they aren't widely read, and it's not necessary to convince everyone.And to substantiate the implied conspiracy in your position, the corruption of the "pharma-approved narrative" would need to extend to private medical print media and to independent journals
What we have is more cronyism than capitalism. In capitalism, if you put a product on the market, you have liability if the product does not perform as advertised, or if it causes harm. Governments world-wide have granted the pharma industry a complete shield from liability for these "vaccines". Do you think Pfizer, Moderna, et al would be selling this stuff if they were actually liable for damages when people were injured by them, or if the governments that are paying for them could get their money back if they ended up ineffective after a matter of months?Wow - this is the stuff of revolution and it is a fundamental indictment of the ability of capitalism to co-exist with the pivotal function of the free-press in a modern democracy
Interior Minister Karl Nehammer said, however, that there will be thorough checks by the police.
Really? Yet you keep coming back to the gun analogy?
Okay.The inverse correlation between the coercive "NPI" measures that were taken (that I've loudly opposed all along) and the excess mortality. Sweden had almost none.
Nonetheless, life looks normal in Sweden these days, too. Mozhu Ding, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, told MedPage Today that people actually stopped social distancing and wearing masks (Sweden never mandated the latter) "way before the restrictions were lifted."
Nearly 80% of people in Sweden ages 16 and up are fully vaccinated, with about 84% getting at least one dose, she said. [jy: as of early October]
"Because of the high trust in the governmental agencies and institutions, the Swedish population got vaccinated en masse," Ding added. "Lifting restrictions is simply the government holding up its side of the bargain."
In Stockholm, many companies have returned to in-person work, and restaurants "are now fully packed and people eat happily together and chat without a worry. On the subway, mask wearers are few and sometimes get looks because it can be assumed that one didn't vaccinate and thus needs the protection."
While trust in officials' initial response to the pandemic may have wavered, trust in the country's vaccination program did not.
"Every Swede has the benefits of having free healthcare and a solid welfare package that they can call upon if they fell ill," Ding said. "Swedes have a genuine feeling that the social institutions are working for them and not exploiting them. Trust in government agencies and the healthcare system is a big part of Sweden's vaccination drive."
"Currently, people are experiencing the freedom that comes with getting vaccinated," she added. While that can change "if there are frequent breakthrough infections that erode confidence in vaccines," that's not currently observed and Sweden plans to introduce third doses to vulnerable populations.
Fred: Alas, I wish that we were better acquainted - so I'm not sure how serious your question is? But on the assumption that yours was not a whimsical response - yes I do!!You think?
Austria orders lockdown for those not vaccinated against COVID-19
"Impfen macht frei! (Vaccination makes you free!}
Is COVID an existential threat? Clearly a difference of opinion!!!I do not believe that society is threatened by this "pandemic".