Coronavirus Outbreak

[earl]

Can anyone debunk below? Its from the European Journal of epidemiology & recent.
If this is true, then we all just gotta exercise a lot of care out there when things reopen next week.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

Mate I was listening to a top rated American scientist a few months ago and he said they don't have the science yet to protect humans from
animal reservoir viruses and its many many years away have a search about animal reservoir viruses and you will see why it's so hard

Can you please provide the link to this information and can you please explain the relevance in relation to COVID. The data backing up vaccination is the best data I have ever seen in my life considering it's breadth and detail. I have worked in data for years and complete many projects using data for regulatory reporting for big corporates.

It's almost like you are throwing out all sorts of misinformation to try and state the COVID vaccines don't work when we know they do.

 

[mike]

No one knows how long the symptoms of long covid lasts for. The side affects could potentially be permanent.

Did you watch the supreme Court today ?

A recap the barrister asked Kristine macartney
Shes the one who gave the order to shut everything Down ... **Is it true that people who are double jab are 13 Times more likely to get the virus** and she answered yes

He also asked ..Are vaccines dangerous to pregnant women and she answered yes

The judge also said today that the government should surpressed the medication and that the government made people believe there was no way out unless vaccination

The judge is justice Thomas Beech Jones

Massive day in court today and it's just the tip of the ice burg

But I think people should read the transcripts from today powerful stuff

You are every good at leaving out details to suit or you are not hearing all the details. I'm confident I found the study the question refers to. I'm pretty sure the question was something along the lines of "Is it true that people double vaccinated with Pfizer were 13 times more likely to get a breakthrough infection with the delta variant than unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 during the same period were to be reinfected."

Entirely different to what you posted. The answer to the question your posted would be no. The answer to the proposed question in the above study could possibly be yes, the study is still to be reviewed or repeated.

 

[cochise]

No one knows how long the symptoms of long covid lasts for. The side affects could potentially be permanent.

Did you watch the supreme Court today ?

A recap the barrister asked Kristine macartney
Shes the one who gave the order to shut everything Down ... **Is it true that people who are double jab are 13 Times more likely to get the virus** and she answered yes

He also asked ..Are vaccines dangerous to pregnant women and she answered yes

The judge also said today that the government should surpressed the medication and that the government made people believe there was no way out unless vaccination

The judge is justice Thomas Beech Jones

Massive day in court today and it's just the tip of the ice burg

But I think people should read the transcripts from today powerful stuff

You are every good at leaving out details to suit or you are not hearing all the details. I found the study the question refers to. I'm pretty sure the question was something along the lines of "Is it true that people double vaccinated with Pfizer were 13 times more likely to get a breakthrough infection with the delta variant than unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 during the same period were to be reinfected."

Entirely different to what you posted. The answer to the question you posted would be no. The answer to the proposed question in the above study could possibly be yes, the study is still to be reviewed or repeated.

I really don't even see the point for that question, unless the person is suggesting it is better to get Covid than the vaccine as it provides better immunity?

 

[mike]

No one knows how long the symptoms of long covid lasts for. The side affects could potentially be permanent.

Did you watch the supreme Court today ?

A recap the barrister asked Kristine macartney
Shes the one who gave the order to shut everything Down ... **Is it true that people who are double jab are 13 Times more likely to get the virus** and she answered yes

He also asked ..Are vaccines dangerous to pregnant women and she answered yes

The judge also said today that the government should surpressed the medication and that the government made people believe there was no way out unless vaccination

The judge is justice Thomas Beech Jones

Massive day in court today and it's just the tip of the ice burg

But I think people should read the transcripts from today powerful stuff

You are every good at leaving out details to suit or you are not hearing all the details. I found the study the question refers to. I'm pretty sure the question was something along the lines of "Is it true that people double vaccinated with Pfizer were 13 times more likely to get a breakthrough infection with the delta variant than unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 during the same period were to be reinfected."

Entirely different to what you posted. The answer to the question you posted would be no. The answer to the proposed question in the above study could possibly be yes, the study is still to be reviewed or repeated.

I really don't even see the point for that question, unless the person is suggesting it is better to get Covid than the vaccine as it provides better immunity?

The question is loaded to give the impression that being unvaccinated is better than being vaccinated, which we know to be entirely false.

 

[cochise]

No one knows how long the symptoms of long covid lasts for. The side affects could potentially be permanent.

Did you watch the supreme Court today ?

A recap the barrister asked Kristine macartney
Shes the one who gave the order to shut everything Down ... **Is it true that people who are double jab are 13 Times more likely to get the virus** and she answered yes

He also asked ..Are vaccines dangerous to pregnant women and she answered yes

The judge also said today that the government should surpressed the medication and that the government made people believe there was no way out unless vaccination

The judge is justice Thomas Beech Jones

Massive day in court today and it's just the tip of the ice burg

But I think people should read the transcripts from today powerful stuff

You are every good at leaving out details to suit or you are not hearing all the details. I found the study the question refers to. I'm pretty sure the question was something along the lines of "Is it true that people double vaccinated with Pfizer were 13 times more likely to get a breakthrough infection with the delta variant than unvaccinated people who had COVID-19 during the same period were to be reinfected."

Entirely different to what you posted. The answer to the question you posted would be no. The answer to the proposed question in the above study could possibly be yes, the study is still to be reviewed or repeated.

I really don't even see the point for that question, unless the person is suggesting it is better to get Covid than the vaccine as it provides better immunity?

The question is loaded to give the impression that being unvaccinated is better than being vaccinated, which we know to be entirely false.

Yeah that was my take, what a foolish question.

 

[earl]

Yeah that was my take, what a foolish question.

It's a dumb question but I think there is a real issue buried there. The issue is comparing immunity derived from contracting COVID compared to immunity derived from the vaccine.

It's not really a question though when it comes to getting vaccinated. Getting vaccinated lowers your risk profile considerably.

The problem is that the guy providing that information appears to have an agenda and doesn't explain it correctly.

 

[cochise]

Yeah that was my take, what a foolish question.

It's a dumb question but I think there is a real issue buried there. The issue is comparing immunity derived from contracting COVID compared to immunity derived from the vaccine.

It's not really a question though when it comes to getting vaccinated. Getting vaccinated lowers your risk profile considerably.

The problem is that the guy providing that information appears to have an agenda and doesn't explain it correctly.

Its a pointless question unless you consider the risks of achieving a level of immunity through infection compared to the risk through Vaccination.

 

[TheDaBoss]

Haircuts come hither

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Bit of a worry on the vaccination front. Still haven't hit 90% single dosed yet, and the numbers have dropped right off over the last few days. 8700 yesterday and 9400 on Monday.

Really think it was thoroughly irresponsible of the NSW government to detail the December 1st concessions while the vaccine take up was still going well.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

In other news, age bracket 12-15 kids have the following vaccination rates:

NSW: 58.65% single, 5.67% double
VIC: 54.81% / 2.08%
ACT: 71.94% / 3.85%
QLD: 28.38% / 2.66%
WA: 19.42% / <1%
SA: 19.94%/ <1%
TAS: 20.04% / 3.06%
NT: 32.6% / 14.21%

 

[Tiger5150]

Alot of Construction workers from Monday the 11 will not need to be vaccinated to work

Big Dom change it late this afternoon

Maybe so but alot of the clients are saying they only want vaxxed people to work on the projects. My dad is an engineer so all of his clients have requested the people working to be fully vaxxed.

And tonight NSW just passed a bill if you require an employee to get vaccinated and they get injuries you are responsible for them till they die even if they no longer work for you the rest of there life image the workers compensation insurance bill going up

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3835/First%20Print.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0Ux0QfcK4B87FcL87Mq1xWvLTwO_hYKqkp6k3ZQc92TjuTi-fwgKf3BTU

Have you read that bill. Your take on it doesn't make sense when you put facts alongside the discussion.

My understanding of that bill is that if you get adverse effects from being vaccinated the employer is liable. ***Do you realize that there has never been any adverse effect from a vaccine greater than 2 months from taking the vaccine ?*** So for life really means a maximum of 2 months. Then on top of that the risk of adverse reactions from COVID vaccines are exceptionally low.

Can you justify your comment regarding increased compensation insurance costs ?

Woah Earl......really?

There has NEVER been an adverse reaction from a vaccine that has lasted longer than 2 months?

Where do you get this stuff and why do you just make it up?

 

[earl]

Yeah that was my take, what a foolish question.

It's a dumb question but I think there is a real issue buried there. The issue is comparing immunity derived from contracting COVID compared to immunity derived from the vaccine.

It's not really a question though when it comes to getting vaccinated. Getting vaccinated lowers your risk profile considerably.

The problem is that the guy providing that information appears to have an agenda and doesn't explain it correctly.

Its a pointless question unless you consider the risks of achieving a level of immunity through infection compared to the risk through Vaccination.

I think this is the issue that they are trying to get at but it's a little more detailed. I think the issue isn't getting vaccinated but mandating vaccinations and the worth of mandating vaccinations when people have already been infected with COVID.

Reading @oidessa post he is trying to paint a picture that vaccination leads to increased chances of contracting COVID which is patently false.

There are arguments against vaccine mandates but I have yet to hear a rational coherent argument against getting vaccinated.

 

[earl]

Bit of a worry on the vaccination front. Still haven't hit 90% single dosed yet, and the numbers have dropped right off over the last few days. 8700 yesterday and 9400 on Monday.

Really think it was thoroughly irresponsible of the NSW government to detail the December 1st concessions while the vaccine take up was still going well.

I'm less concerned about the really low vaccination rates the past couple of days because it was a Sunday and a public holiday. Hopefully it turns around today - i.e. people got vaccinated yesterday.

I agree that we shouldn't be allowing freedoms for unvaccinated for a while yet. I would implement a >95% population rule. The thing is the freeloaders who refuse to get vaccinated in my opinion are getting off way too lightly. I would also tax them considerably more. I'd add an uinvaccinated levy. Just charge them an extra 1% of their wages due to choosing not to be vaccinated. It's a simple user pays model.

 

[Tiger5150]

Yeah that was my take, what a foolish question.

It's a dumb question but I think there is a real issue buried there. The issue is comparing immunity derived from contracting COVID compared to immunity derived from the vaccine.

It's not really a question though when it comes to getting vaccinated. Getting vaccinated lowers your risk profile considerably.

The problem is that the guy providing that information appears to have an agenda and doesn't explain it correctly.

Its a pointless question unless you consider the risks of achieving a level of immunity through infection compared to the risk through Vaccination.

I think this is the issue that they are trying to get at but it's a little more detailed. I think the issue isn't getting vaccinated but mandating vaccinations and the worth of mandating vaccinations when people have already been infected with COVID.

Reading @oidessa post he is trying to paint a picture that vaccination leads to increased chances of contracting COVID which is patently false.

There are arguments against vaccine mandates but I have yet to hear a rational coherent argument against getting vaccinated.

What about a rational coherent argument against vaccination if you have previously contracted COVID? I can think of a pretty rational coherent argument.

 

[tigger]

Here are some facts released in today's Victorian press conference:

53.6% of Victorians aged 16 or over have received double Covid Vaccinations.
525 people are currently in hospital suffering from Covid
Only 6% of those hospitalised have been double vaccinated.

The comparison between the percentage of double vaccinated people in hospital and the percentage of double vaccinated people in the eligible population is stark and tells its own story.

 

[nuggetron]

Alot of Construction workers from Monday the 11 will not need to be vaccinated to work

Big Dom change it late this afternoon

Maybe so but alot of the clients are saying they only want vaxxed people to work on the projects. My dad is an engineer so all of his clients have requested the people working to be fully vaxxed.

And tonight NSW just passed a bill if you require an employee to get vaccinated and they get injuries you are responsible for them till they die even if they no longer work for you the rest of there life image the workers compensation insurance bill going up

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3835/First%20Print.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0Ux0QfcK4B87FcL87Mq1xWvLTwO_hYKqkp6k3ZQc92TjuTi-fwgKf3BTU

Have you read that bill. Your take on it doesn't make sense when you put facts alongside the discussion.

My understanding of that bill is that if you get adverse effects from being vaccinated the employer is liable. ***Do you realize that there has never been any adverse effect from a vaccine greater than 2 months from taking the vaccine ?*** So for life really means a maximum of 2 months. Then on top of that the risk of adverse reactions from COVID vaccines are exceptionally low.

Can you justify your comment regarding increased compensation insurance costs ?

Woah Earl......really?

There has NEVER been an adverse reaction from a vaccine that has lasted longer than 2 months?

Where do you get this stuff and why do you just make it up?

fairly sure he was saying that any symptoms show up within 2 months not lasts less than 2 months

 

[Tiger5150]

The thing is the freeloaders who refuse to get vaccinated in my opinion are getting off way too lightly. I would also tax them considerably more. I'd add an uinvaccinated levy. Just charge them an extra 1% of their wages due to choosing not to be vaccinated. It's a simple user pays model.

Freeloaders get off too lightly? Arent they simply weighing up the risks and making a decision? The only price they could and should pay is catching COVID and taking their chances.

In your "simple" user pays model......what are they paying for? If it is extra medical bills, you let smokers off? Fat people?

Just for context, Im fully vaxxed and have swollen lymph nodes the size of a tennis ball to prove it.

 

[Tiger5150]

Alot of Construction workers from Monday the 11 will not need to be vaccinated to work

Big Dom change it late this afternoon

Maybe so but alot of the clients are saying they only want vaxxed people to work on the projects. My dad is an engineer so all of his clients have requested the people working to be fully vaxxed.

And tonight NSW just passed a bill if you require an employee to get vaccinated and they get injuries you are responsible for them till they die even if they no longer work for you the rest of there life image the workers compensation insurance bill going up

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3835/First%20Print.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0Ux0QfcK4B87FcL87Mq1xWvLTwO_hYKqkp6k3ZQc92TjuTi-fwgKf3BTU

Have you read that bill. Your take on it doesn't make sense when you put facts alongside the discussion.

My understanding of that bill is that if you get adverse effects from being vaccinated the employer is liable. ***Do you realize that there has never been any adverse effect from a vaccine greater than 2 months from taking the vaccine ?*** So for life really means a maximum of 2 months. Then on top of that the risk of adverse reactions from COVID vaccines are exceptionally low.

Can you justify your comment regarding increased compensation insurance costs ?

Woah Earl......really?

There has NEVER been an adverse reaction from a vaccine that has lasted longer than 2 months?

Where do you get this stuff and why do you just make it up?

fairly sure he was saying that any symptoms show up within 2 months not lasts less than 2 months

THat makes more sense. I also think that that is wrong as well and would be interested in where he got those figures from.

Its something that rubs me up the wrong way with the totally binary argument about vaccines.....good or bad. Vaccines are ALWAYS fantastic and safe...or they are dangerous. Its not that binary and the question that always pops into my head when I here people say "vaccines have been safe for 50years" is........"why did they stop making the MMR vaccine with mercury?". THe MMR vaccine I got is totally different to the one my kids got and with good reason.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Bit of a worry on the vaccination front. Still haven't hit 90% single dosed yet, and the numbers have dropped right off over the last few days. 8700 yesterday and 9400 on Monday.

Really think it was thoroughly irresponsible of the NSW government to detail the December 1st concessions while the vaccine take up was still going well.

I'm less concerned about the really low vaccination rates the past couple of days because it was a Sunday and a public holiday. Hopefully it turns around today - i.e. people got vaccinated yesterday.

I agree that we shouldn't be allowing freedoms for unvaccinated for a while yet. I would implement a >95% population rule. The thing is the freeloaders who refuse to get vaccinated in my opinion are getting off way too lightly. I would also tax them considerably more. I'd add an uinvaccinated levy. Just charge them an extra 1% of their wages due to choosing not to be vaccinated. It's a simple user pays model.

Yesterday was a Tuesday. 8700 people got first doses. Monday was a public holiday and 9400 got their first dose.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The thing is the freeloaders who refuse to get vaccinated in my opinion are getting off way too lightly. I would also tax them considerably more. I'd add an uinvaccinated levy. Just charge them an extra 1% of their wages due to choosing not to be vaccinated. It's a simple user pays model.

Freeloaders get off too lightly? Arent they simply weighing up the risks and making a decision? The only price they could and should pay is catching COVID and taking their chances.

In your "simple" user pays model......what are they paying for? If it is extra medical bills, you let smokers off? Fat people?

Just for context, Im fully vaxxed and have swollen lymph nodes the size of a tennis ball to prove it.

Its a silly post by Ear but as for smokers, I saw the price guide at Coles the other day. 40+ bucks for a packet?? crazy. So I think smokers are paying for their eventual healthcare, one way or another.

So are drinkers. The cost of alcohol has gone up rapidly in the last 15 years.