General Corona Virus Discussion

[RGH0]

Lets just start with an technical analysis of why Covid and vaccinations cannot be a government or big pharma conspiracy. It is just not possible to hide that sort of thing

Medical disinformation and the unviable nature of COVID-19 conspiracy theories

The coronavirus pandemic has seen a marked rise in medical disinformation across social media. A variety of claims have garnered considerable traction, including the assertion that COVID is a hoax or deliberately manufactured, that 5G frequency radiation causes coronavirus, and that the pandemic...

journals.plos.org

And then look at an analysis of the anti-vaxxer claims in May 2021 at the same time as the Fauci statements

Just 12 People Are Behind Most Vaccine Hoaxes On Social Media, Research Shows

The majority of false claims about COVID-19 vaccines on social media trace back to just a handful of influential figures. So why don't the companies just shut them down?

www.npr.org

Of course it can claimed all this analysis is actually part of the wider government conspiracy itself aimed at hiding the conspiracy but I would say all that is part of the exaggerated claims I feel that need to be countered.

That is not to say that some of the government actions in some countries and at some times were not as focused or targeted as they could have been. But that is inevitable with any government even if it has the best intent.

cheers
Rohan

 

[Fred's Imports]

Why not just quote the Washington Post or NYT? Geezes guy propoganda at it's best. You think these doctors came out because they knew they would get rich?

 

[RGH0]

Yes I know.... no one is credible, not the governments, not the mainstream media , not the scientists and doctors and organisations they represent. They are all part of a conspiracy and it is just the few enlightened ones of us on social media who know what's really going on.

mmmmmm..... let me think about the credibility of that type of claim for a while

 

[Uwe]

Yes I know....

Of course, and this is totally normal, right?

Airtable | Everyone's app platform

Airtable is a low-code platform for building collaborative apps. Customize your workflow, collaborate, and achieve ambitious outcomes. Get started for free.

airtable.com

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

Of course, and this is totally normal, right?

Airtable | Everyone's app platform

Airtable is a low-code platform for building collaborative apps. Customize your workflow, collaborate, and achieve ambitious outcomes. Get started for free.

airtable.com

-Uwe-

@Uwe: My fellow countryman appears to be more than capable at responding to the extraordinary claims about conspiracy based COVID practises - but entirely for my benefit, what exactly do you mean by the link above?

Don

 

[Uwe]

what exactly do you mean by the link above?

Have you looked at it? Have you scrolled through the data?

Surely you're aware that the mRNA injections are known to cause heart problems, particularly in young men, right? Even the establishment doesn't deny this, but unfortunately they haven't admitted to the scope/scale of the problem.

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

Have you looked at it? Have you scrolled through the data?

I did indeed "scroll through the data" - I entered both "COVID" and "vaccin" into the browser search-box on your link with no hits

.........and, whilst I didn't investigate ALL the cases, I also did go-to the webpage of some of the deaths- the connection to COVID, or vaccination being the cause of the heart attacks (or even contributing to the deaths) was not obvious in the pages I read.

Hence my confusion!!

Surely you're aware that the mRNA injections are known to cause heart problems, particularly in young men, right? Even the establishment doesn't deny this, but unfortunately they haven't admitted to the scope/scale of the problem.

-Uwe-

Arrrh........... now, I see what you mean!!

Yes, I am aware that COVID itself can cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system - and I'm also aware that thrombosis (blood clots) has been reported after being given the AstraZeneca COVIDvaccine - and the vaccine can lead to heart inflammation (typically mild) in some people.

Again, it's really not helpful exchanging a barrage of citations as to severity - but no-one here on the pro-vaccine side will hold that these medicines are totally risk-free (very few medical interventions are ever without some unwanted side-effects)!!

I suspect that even the nay-sayers do NOT claim the vaccination programs have failed because the medicine has side effects. If they do, I suggest that their expectations of success might be a tad exaggerated!!

So, the question about severity is really the point of contention

In any event and even accepting the premise of your position (which I don't) - I fail to understand how the elevated instances of vaccine induced heart attacks can possibly support the COVID conspiracy theory??

I seems to me as a naive citizen that if Governments around the world seek to subjugate their populations via draconian COVID medicines - the last thing that they would want is to kill their young?

After all, surely any clear thinking dystopian government would realize the the youth in their communities are the best resource to achieve their clandestine ambitions for control (old folk simply die too soon - therefore not valuable at all in despotic regimes)l!

What am I missing - maybe another example of obfuscation by complication - perhaps?

Don

 

[RGH0]

A nice anecdotal list of incidents with a host of implications but no real analysis, which is typical of the antivax brigade and many other pressure groups in many other areas of contention such as autism or climate change ( pro and con) .

Now I would like to see the statistical significance of that list and any relationship statistically of that to Covid vaccinations either direct or by proper population trends analysis.

There are a low rate of adverse consequences which are statistically much less than the benefits on a population basis as far as I can see. How individuals decide to relate to this is up to them and whether they want to take the risks of Covid or the risks of Vaccination. How the democratic governments of the world decide to encourage vaccination is up to them and they face judgment at the balance box.

All bets are off for the approach taken by the non democratic governments of the world.

cheers
Rohan

 

[Uwe]

I suspect that even the nay-sayers do NOT claim the vaccination programs have failed because the medicine has side effects.

No, the've failed because they do not prevent infection by, or transmission of the virus.

They may reduce severity of symptoms if a person gets infected for some period of time after being inoculated, but even that effect is transient, lasting perhaps 6-9 months at best.

Now consider that young, healthy people are at essentially negligible risk of severe symptoms from this virus to begin with, in light of the obviously dangerous side-effects, I see it as downright criminal for governments to demand that they take it.

-Uwe-

 

[Uwe]

There are a low rate of adverse consequences which are statistically much less than the benefits on a population basis as far as I can see.

"On a population basis"? So everyone should take it, no matter the risk/benefit to them personally, despite the fact that it doesn't stop infection or transmission?

How individuals decide to relate to this is up to them and whether they want to take the risks of Covid or the risks of Vaccination.

Really? It's up to the individual? So you can get in your car and drive anywhere you want in your country, or leave and re-enter your country, without showing proof of injection? Private businesses such as restaurants and bars are free to remain open without forcing their employees to get injected? They can cater to customers without demanding proof of injection from customers?

-Uwe-

 

[RGH0]

Yes right or wrong their are always consequences of decisions you make as an individual. Some of the consequences will be protection or not from Covid, risks or not of side effects, constraints or not on what you can or cannot do. You can only make your own risk versus benefit judgement


In the end you may not like some of the options that the world and Governments impose and that is what democracy is about... at least you get a vote.

You may not like it that you may be in the minority some of the time and you end up with a Government you dont like but at least overtime you can continue to campaign from opposition and if the government stuffs it up badly enough you end up with a government you may like rather than in prison

 

[DV52]

No, the've failed because they do not prevent infection by, or transmission of the virus.

Whilst I disagree with the latter part of your statement above, this is not the first time that you have made the odd assertion in the former part of your quote above!!

I repeat,

@Uwe: With the greatest respect, there is an important difference between preventing disease and preventing infection!!

I'm more than happy to be told otherwise, but I wasn't aware that any of the COVID vaccines claim to be "sterilizing immunity” type.

Don

So - it is simply incorrect (and it's patently unreasonable) to assert that:

"the've [vaccines] failed because they do not prevent infection"​

No COVID vaccine maker has ever made the claim that their medicines are the "sterilizing immunity” type. In ALL cases, COVID vaccines have the normal purpose of disease control - not infection control!

Continuing to hold this position is akin to someone saying that medicine for an irritation of the scalp has failed because it didn't cure male pattern baldness - of course this is nonsense because the medication was never designed to cure baldness!! In the same way, COVID vaccination is NOT designed to prevent infection of the vaccinated person.

And as for your latter claim and from personal experience - I very much doubt that Australia's medical infrastructure would have survived the onslaught of cases without our high vaccination rate. Even you admit below that COVID vaccines "may reduce severity of symptoms".

The obvious fact is that reduced severity of symptoms does allow medical infrastructure to remain operational. And the sublime irony is that the largest beneficiaries of this outcome are the very folk that refuse to get vaccinated!! I don't begrudge nay-sayers from having this advantage - nevertheless, it would be appreciated if at the very-least, this minority acknowledged the efforts of their mainstream fellow citizens.

This acknowledgement is appropriate IMO because it is vaccinated folk who have chosen to consider the needs of the wider community, rather than choosing the narrow, self-serving, freedoms of the individual - as do the nay-sayers !!

They may reduce severity of symptoms if a person gets infected for some period of time after being inoculated, but even that effect is transient, lasting perhaps 6-9 months at best.

hmm.......... why is this noteworthy? This novel SARS-CoV-2 virus is just 2 years old and perhaps its most prominent features is its ability to replicate and its propensity to mutate.

With such a virulent and recent disease, what do nay-sayers believe is a reasonable period of inoculation for a successful vaccine - at best?

My view is that whilst I would of course have liked to have seen a better performance, the vaccine outcomes have been entirely appropriate - given the circumstances

Now consider that young, healthy people are at essentially negligible risk of severe symptoms from this virus to begin with, in light of the obviously dangerous side-effects, I see it as downright criminal for governments to demand that they take it.

Yes, I understand your position - by IMO, none of your words above supports your position!!

 

[Uwe]

No COVID vaccine maker has ever made the claim that their medicines are the "sterilizing immunity” type. In ALL cases, COVID vaccines have the normal purpose of disease control - not infection control!

That's true, the vaccine makers themselves did not make that claim, but the politicians, the "public health" bureaucrats, and their lapdog media certainly did. They tried to guilt everyone into taking theses shots on the false premise that doing so would prevent people from getting infected and then infecting others.

I very much doubt that Australia's medical infrastructure would have survived the onslaught of cases without our high vaccination rate.

Really? Is Australia's medical infrastructure so poor that it wouldn't have survived? Because in every other country that had waves of infection before any vaccines were available, the medical infrastructure managed just fine somehow.

My view is that whilst I would of course have liked to have seen a better performance, the vaccine outcomes have been entirely appropriate - given the circumstances

Tell that to all the young people with heart damage that will likely never heal completely, and the millions of others world-wide with vaccine injuries of all types.

-Uwe-

 

[DV52]

That's true, the vaccine makers themselves did not make that claim, but the politicians, the "public health" bureaucrats, and their lapdog media certainly did. They tried to guilt everyone into taking theses shots on the false premise that doing so would prevent people from getting infected and then infecting others.

hmm...... yes, you have mentioned this previously - but I very much doubt that the instances of wrong information that you have quoted in the past constitute a systemic and deliberate wave of miss-advice.

Nevertheless and regrettable as they are, the occasional wrong statement from decision makers doesn't change anything...... and in any event - I hardly think that someone of your obvious intelligence and your elevated powers for critical analysis would be swayed into accepting that vaccines stop COVID infection - purely because of the occasional wrong statement!!

I like to believe that I'm a reasonable judge of character, and whilst we have never met - I would be flabbergasted if you could be so easily convinced that COVID vaccines are sterilizing-immunity type.

Really? Is Australia's medical infrastructure so poor that it wouldn't have survived? Because in every other country that had waves of infection before any vaccines were available, the medical infrastructure managed just fine somehow.

hmm... "really" indeed? What a very strange response!

Surely you aren't proposing that as a measure of vaccine efficacy -we examine the medical environment in the early days of the contagion (i.e. pre-vaccination)?

How is it possible to conclude that without vaccines - the world's medical infrastructure would have survived the subsequent onslaught of successive waves of infection mutations that resulted in staggering increases in infection numbers - simply by noting that when infection numbers were low, said institutions didn't collapse??

This can't be a serious suggestion to support nay-sayer's position??

 

[RGH0]

I think I have previously provided a number of examples where medical systems did not handle "just fine" the case load brought about by Covid before mass vaccinations. e.g. NY in the very early stages, UK and India and Italy later on.

A specific example for Australia was during the first wave infections that took hold in nursing homes in Victoria, and which resulted in a significant number of people dying in the nursing homes with inadequate care due to lack of staff in the homes due to staff infections and lack of ability to transfer them to hospitals due to lack of hospital capacity. While the overall medical system may have had the capacity in ideal circumstances, its capacity was significantly reduced due to lack of staff due to staff infections

regards
Rohan

 

[NZDubNurd]

Nevertheless and regrettable as they are, the occasional wrong statement from decision makers doesn't change anything

Errr...

We have an NZ Government funded radio advertisement which has "Steve" (a port worker) telling everybody he got the vaccine because he didn't want to take the virus home to his family... There is another one too, but I can't recall the wording. They were in use very recently, if not still in use.

A lot of the population here still thinks the vaccine stops you getting it, or passing it on - In fact my nieces partner is a police officer in South Auckland and many of his "customers" refuse to wear masks, because they're vaccinated, so are immune

The problems with the "wrong statements" is that people believe them and run with it! It was officially sold to them like that.

 

[RGH0]

I think if you look at the exact wording of the NZ ads there is enough wriggle room for the statements to not be "wrong" and not to be an "absolute guarantee" that you will not get Covid if vaccinated

If people interpret them as an absolute guarantee that they cannot get Covid after vaccination and act accordingly, in defiance of government regulation that are clearly in place because vaccination is not an absolute guarantee then they must bear the consequences of their own judgements

 

[DV52]

Errr...

We have an NZ Government funded radio advertisement which has "Steve" (a port worker) telling everybody he got the vaccine because he didn't want to take the virus home to his family... There is another one too, but I can't recall the wording. They were in use very recently, if not still in use.

A lot of the population here still thinks the vaccine stops you getting it, or passing it on - In fact my nieces partner is a police officer in South Auckland and many of his "customers" refuse to wear masks, because they're vaccinated, so are immune

The problems with the "wrong statements" is that people believe them and run with it! It was officially sold to them like that.

Errr....... I have the greatest respect for the "almost-Aussies" across the ditch.

However, in case NZ folk don't show their usual intelligence and cunning - my advice is that you brief your barristers early. Because if such advertisements can be verified - it's going to be only the first few cases that will succeed where vaccinated claimants who get COVID sue (before the NZ Government goes bankrupt)!!

Don

 

[PetrolDave]

Tell that to all the young people with heart damage that will likely never heal completely, and the millions of others world-wide with vaccine injuries of all types.

-Uwe-

It's not just young people that get heart damage, and it's not just from Covid vaccines.

My resting heart rate before I got Covid in December 2020 (before any vaccines were widely available here in the UK) was around 70bpm, post getting Covid and being in ICU my resting heart rate was initially around 100bpm and now over a year later it is still around 90bpm.

So from personal experience I would say it's not clear when looking only at the risk of heart damage whether it's better to have a Covid vaccine and take the risk that you get heart damage from the vaccine or whether to take the risk of getting Covid and possible heart damage caused by that. I can't see enough data to decide which of those is the lower risk approach from purely a heart damage standpoint.

 

[Bruce]

I have stayed out of this debate.. but like @PetrolDave, I have had an experience...

Let me first state that I am obese and I have hypertension. I am 66 years old. I am in the high risk category for death from Covid.

My wife and I made the decision that we should take the vaccinations. Jab #1 - sore arm. Jab #2 - sick for a week. Booster #1 is where the troubles really began.

A week after the jab, I had a racing heart, shortness of breath, and I suffered vertigo. It would come and go during the course of a day. By Christmas, I was managing fine but still did not feel "normal". It is now the end of Feb. I still get momentary bouts with vertigo although the racing heart has stopped. My pulse is normal. If I exert myself, I get short of breath. (Perhaps my sedentary lifestyle of staying home and not getting out and about is the cause of the shortness of breath - but I am not convinced. Prior to the booster, I had none of that.)

They talk now of booster #2 for "at risk" people. Do you think I am feeling I should take that jab? I fear it might just cause my death.

@PetrolDave, I understand your conundrum. I too am uncertain of what I should do. What I can do I am doing: I am staying away from people as much as I can and I am wearing a mask if I can't stay away.
Did I have myself checked out at the doctor's office? NO.

Why would I go to a place where my perception of the risk of being infected is one of the highest? I'm staying away... My sister, a nurse, has told me I am a fool. Ok. I can live with that (well maybe).

Bad decision? The consequences of my decision to not get checked out may prove to be fatal. The consequences of making the other decision (going to the doctor) may also prove fatal.. hmmm.. How does one measure the real risk?

Ain't life and making life decision great? Work your ass off for 56 years (yes, I started working when I was 10) thinking that the final 15 years would be a time to do things I wanted to do. Then Covid and now maybe a world financial crisis caused by war... Joy! Final years may not measure up to my expectations.

What can we say about the random calamities that pour into our lives over which we have little or no control? Do we face them or run from them? Do we think that any in the Ukraine care about Covid today? Could it be that soon we will have far more difficulties to argue about?

I have followed this debate - every post. I guess I can say it has been entertaining. I feel that it did not enlighten me; that in the end, I was on the island of having to make my own decisions. Both sides bombarded the other with their "facts" leaving the readers with the impression that there are few "facts" in evidence that would lead one to a conclusive answer. Truth.. lies somewhere in between the two camps opinions. The reader is left to their own decision process.

In other words, despite the 57 pages of posts on this topic, the reader is right where they started - on their own.

I like popcorn while I am entertained...