Coronavirus Outbreak

[old_man_tiger]

Here is an argument for a health tax or levy in situations like this. Prior to covid the taxes you already paid covered the cost of a health system that more or less met the needs of the country. There were still issues in the system, but it was OK and in major cities more or less what you'd expect in a developed nation.

During wave 1, there were no vaccines, governments had to quickly scale up capacity. The resources we stressed about in the system were beds, ventilators, and to a lesser extent staff. Apart from Victoria and the "second wave" the rest of us never really faced what most of the world faced.

In this year's wave the NSW Health system got into a pretty tight spot. The biggest issue wasn't the physical infrastructure, several hospitals opened and closed wards inline with demand. The biggest issue was staff. The hidden cost of life and quality of life isn't in the covid death number, because that figure doesn't include those who couldn't or didn't access care due to staff shortages or lockdowns. Bear that in mind for the last paragraph.

The strain on the hospital system has disappeared because of lockdown and a freshly vaccinated majority. We probably won't lockdown again, but we will have new strains and waves of infection. These are manageable with vaccination. The strain on the health system when our Vax rates were lower and we were in lockdown proves that. Mitigating the strain requires an available, suitably trained workforce who can either be flown in or work in other fields domestically, dormant until needed. This is very expensive, and frankly a preposterous waste of money when we have a solution. Doctors are the least of our problems btw, I'm trying to hire nurses, receptionists etc... it is very challenging at the moment.

So as individuals in a society we make a choice around vaccination or non-vaccination. If the latter is chosen by too many people we have seen the health system can't cope without extra resources. So, who should pay for these resources? Or do we not invest these resources and make a choice to not treat certain conditions? BTW the recent pause on so called "elective" surgery was a decision to not treat treatable conditions due to a lack of resources so please reflect on that. If you had treatable chronic issues, and your suffering was extended because of social media nonsense and people with serious issues understanding logic, who should pay to solve that? What if the surgery was for your kid?

You realise that in 2017 more people died of influenza that died of Covid in 2020? Its mitigated by a vaccine. Where was the tax then? Where was the health system overrun? It wasnt

NO COVID isnt like the flu, without lockdowns and restrictions COVID deaths would probably be x10 but the fact remains that in 2017 and 2019 infleunza killed more people than Covid in 2020/2021.


With some mitigation strategies, but generally not in vaccinated populations, societies that treat covid anything like the flu will clock up a death rate of 1/500. A lot more that 10x.

Were private hospitals given viability payments in 2017? Were nurses seconded to the Public system? Were we in lockdown to control cases? WHO estimates in may of this year had over 100,000 care workers dead from covid globally. Did that happen in 2017? I remember a bit of panic in the system, but nothing like 2021.

I wrote a bunch of other stuff, and frankly it was basically a bunch of simple questions like the above. Earl's point is largely rhetorical and I would have found a post countering this on economic grounds useful. The world needs less erroneous covid and flu comparisons, especially on questions of resources, as opposed to the health of a given individual.

The flu-like stage is coming, it is contingent on better therapeutics, better vaccines or boosters of the current, and broader access to supply globally and across age ranges, but I think you know this which makes your post odd.

Good post, well expressed.

I dont equate the Flu & COVID on any level. COVID is nothing like influenza. Without lockdowns, restrictions and the vaccine it would be an unmitigated disaster and of course all the measures you list have been necessary and in the most part precautionary.

I am merely making the point that in actual impact, in raw numbers, the impact on our hospital system hasnt been much more than a bad flu season and Im making this crude, simple example in a discussion about additional taxes on one sector of the population but not the other. Im simply making the point that the impact has not been significant comparable to previous years (influenza disappeared last two years due to COVID actions) and therefore ot doesnt warrant this taxation impposition.

Of course an argument can be made to tax the unvaxxed. Its not a difficult argument and its easy to throw in the alcohol and cigarettes example but I am opposed on the basis that we live in a society, a community with the purpose to look after everyone to the extent we can. I'm an economic capitalist and strong believer that markets fix everything but even I think that degenerating totally into a "user pays" mentality is very dangerous and will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable.

I also think that some of the call to tax the unvaxxed is out of animus. I am vaxxed and given that around 90% of the state and probably the country will be vaxxed, Im not that worried about the unvaxxed and I dont hold any animosity to them.

Can't deny there is still a vindictive part of me on this issue, but it is getting easier to show some understanding as life resembles something a bit more familiar. Actually in some ways my concern is shifting to the 6 or 8 unvaxxed I know who I'm worried about. They will be at increased risk once kids/boosters increase and maintain herd immunity and the rest of us stop testing/isolating. I guess that's scarier than a hypothetical tax.

Thanks for a good discussion.

 

[earl]

Maybe a tax on repeated posts in the COVID thread..

$10 per post..saying the same thing 600 thousand times..

Good idea. Add a tax on whining as well.

 

[earl]

people will take cocaine weed and vape and smoke

A lot of unknowns substances going into your body there..how ever when it comes to taking a vaccine that has been deceloped to keep u healthy and safe and potentially others around u, people rebel... lol how weird

That’s what the government tells you to believe

???? here we go with the government

So the earth is flat and 5G is now implanted in my body is it?

Let’s not be silly son. I’m not here to influence anyone, I have my beliefs. But I also think that you have to think positive in life and not think oh I’m going to get COVID and die tomorrow.

I have never thought I was going to get covid and die tomorrow, I could but I don't think like that. There are people who have a much greater chance of dying if they get covid though and my reason for getting vaxxed is to do my part. If there is less covid circulating in the community because myself and other like minded individuals got vaxxed then that means the people who are a greater chance of dying have less chance of catching it because I played my part. Vaccines are not just about protecting the individual which is the point most people in your situation ignore.

Seems like now days alot of people only think about themselves and not about the other people around them.i have heard people say the sick and Elderly should be confined to their homes and everyone else be able to go out.

You do know that the vaccinated still carry the virus and spread it right?

You are less likely to transmit if Vaccinated.

So that means you still transmit

Where have I ever said that vaccinated people can't still transmit? It is greatly reduced though and that reduction may prevent someone who is vulnerable catching it and dying, why wouldn't I want to prevent that?

Then how did 15 people get it in a gym - all vaccinated? Great vaccine. Your close enough to someone and you have the virus, you will spread it, vaccine or not. Point is, I’m backing my immune system, that’s why it’s there and the fact I know 2 families that copped COVID and recovered at home with just rest and hydration.

Yeah who cares about the vulnerable?

It's not just that though is it. What about our health care workers ?

 

[earl]

Can’t deny there is still a vindictive part of me on this issue, but it is getting easier to show some understanding as life resembles something a bit more familiar. Actually in some ways my concern is shifting to the 6 or 8 unvaxxed I know who I’m worried about.

I'm definitely not vindictive. I believe in the free market but the free market doesn't always provide for the best social outcome.

I'm not that worried about the unvaxxed I know. Most of the unvaxxed I know have already caught it. I have an 11 yo son. He is back at school and doesn't wear a mask. I assume he will be okay. The risk at that age is really low. I suppose I prefer him getting vaccinated but I don't see the point about getting worked up about it. He should be okay.

 

[yeti]

The problem with this approach is that people die. People have thought exactly the same thing as you and died. That is worse case. People have also gotten long COVID or been really sick. You can minimise the chance of negative impacts via getting vaccinated.

You will probably be okay but dude healthy people have died.

I view not getting vaccinated as simply having a really really poor ability to assess your personal risk factor.

It also means you don’t care about society in general and health care workers in particular.

Lastly since the data is so one sided to me it also shows an inability to filter information accurately. This to me is the big issue of this pandemic. People for whatever reason suffer from disinformation.

"My SIL family and it’s a big family did exactly what you state you know other people have done - i.e. stay at home,dose up on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) and pray it works out. It did work out but they were sick.

I’ll add that in Australia Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) has not been considered a good treatment for COVID. There was a note sent to GP’s not to prescribe it. I have not seen a good study on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)."

Earl, this view point relies entirely on accepting the "official narrative". You are accepting that the numbers are accurate. You are accepting that the TGA's assessment of the efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is accurate. You are accepting that 'every death attributed' to Covid19 was in fact due to Covid19. (In Canada for example, where seasonal influenza deaths are usually in the order of 20,000, they had just 6 - yes 6, not 6000 - in 2020).You are accepting that the very strict time frame set by health authorities to consider injury or death post jab as possibly due to the injection is fair and reasonable. You are accepting that those few injuries or deaths accepted by the health authorities as being due to the jabs are the only injuries and deaths that have occurred as a result of the jabs. You are accepting that there will be no longer term and as yet unknown health issues resulting from these jabs.
We now have the Qld government admitting that adverse events are not being followed up on. We have front line doctors working with alternative protocols using proven safe and inexpensive drugs, having incredible results using those protocols. And again I reference Dr Pierre Cory as he is perhaps the best known doctor on the front line working with a protocol using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But he is certainly not the only one. There are literally hundreds. He testified before a grand jury about the efficacy of this drug and has a slew of metadata to back up his own work. Unless you are calling this doctor and others like him liars, then you perhaps should consider that all that is put forward by the powers that be, may not be gospel.
We have Uttah Pradesh, an area of India with 241 million people and a very low vaccination rate, now declaring themselves "covid free". How did they achieve this? This was achieved with their government actively making available Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) to the general population. Other parts of India where the governments have either discourage the use of this drug, or as in the case in Australia, prevented its use, are still in the grip of Covid.
If this was truly a health issue, wouldn't the governments of the world be actively encouraging studies in all areas of preventative medicine as well as in the treatment of the disease? Why would Doctors and nurses be threatened with de-registration for speaking out? (And some that have spoken out have been suffered loss of their registration). Wouldn't the governments of the world be encouraging people to look to their nutrition and life styles to give themselves the best chance to avoid becoming ill? We know that obesity, second only to age, is the most significant contributing factor to the dangers of Covid 19.
If this was truly a health issue, why would there be such heavy censorship of everything and everyone that questions the narrative?
Perhaps this is not about health at all. When we zoom out to 30,000 feet, maybe we see a very different agenda.
Follow the money.
Who is profiting from the pandemic both in $$$, and in tightening their grip on control?
Lets look at 'Big Pharma'. (By the way, did you know that Moderna paid the NSW Government somewhere between $45 million and $65 million in grants? (It is of course hard to get an accurate figure, but the amount sits somewhere in that range).
But hey, when you are making around $250 million a week in revenue, who cares right?
Which industry spends the more $$ on government lobbyists in the USA than the next 2 biggest lobby groups - Oil and Defence - combined? Yeah, that's right, Big Pharma.
Who are the major share holders of ALL the big Pharma companies? Well lets see - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Alpahabet, Microsoft)? Well looky here - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls MSM? Well, there are 9 conglomerates that control 90% of MSM. But as you follow the $$ and find out who owns or controls those conglomerates, you find it is Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Same with food, same with oil, same with mining, same with travel, same with clothing and so it goes.
It is estimated that by the year 2028, just 2 investment firms will control 20 trillion $$ of business annually.
And then to top it off, who owns or controls Black Rock? Well, you won't be surprised to learn that it is Vanguard.
And who owns or controls Vanguard. Impossible to say - it is a private company. But let's not kid ourselves - its the usual suspects. Rockefeller, Rothschild, the British Royal Family, the Morgans ...you've heard the names.
And how do they move the trillions of $$ around the globe without attracting attention or even paying their share of taxes? They use not for profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Open Society Foundations (Soros), the Bush Foundation - and so it goes. And of course, who is the biggest contributor to the World Health Organisation? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, of course.
The World Economic Forum - you know, the elite who fly in on their private jets to Davos every year to have a gab fest on issue like climate change. The founder and mouth piece, Klaus Schwab, is the one who coined the phrase "Build Back Better" - the same catch cry taken up with such enthusiasm by sycophantic leaders such as Biden, Trudeau, Merkle, Arden, etc, etc. And who are the major sponsors of the WEC? Well, its the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Vanguard and the Soros group of foundations.
Starting to get the picture?
I apologise. I have rambled on too long and gotten way off topic.
I just encourage people to perhaps starting looking at things in a less myopic way. There's more at play here than a corona virus.

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

The problem with this approach is that people die. People have thought exactly the same thing as you and died. That is worse case. People have also gotten long COVID or been really sick. You can minimise the chance of negative impacts via getting vaccinated.

You will probably be okay but dude healthy people have died.

I view not getting vaccinated as simply having a really really poor ability to assess your personal risk factor.

It also means you don’t care about society in general and health care workers in particular.

Lastly since the data is so one sided to me it also shows an inability to filter information accurately. This to me is the big issue of this pandemic. People for whatever reason suffer from disinformation.

"My SIL family and it’s a big family did exactly what you state you know other people have done - i.e. stay at home,dose up on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) and pray it works out. It did work out but they were sick.

I’ll add that in Australia Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) has not been considered a good treatment for COVID. There was a note sent to GP’s not to prescribe it. I have not seen a good study on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)."

Earl, this view point relies entirely on accepting the "official narrative". You are accepting that the numbers are accurate. You are accepting that the TGA's assessment of the efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is accurate. You are accepting that 'every death attributed' to Covid19 was in fact due to Covid19. (In Canada for example, where seasonal influenza deaths are usually in the order of 20,000, they had just 6 - yes 6, not 6000 - in 2020).You are accepting that the very strict time frame set by health authorities to consider injury or death post jab as possibly due to the injection is fair and reasonable. You are accepting that those few injuries or deaths accepted by the health authorities as being due to the jabs are the only injuries and deaths that have occurred as a result of the jabs. You are accepting that there will be no longer term and as yet unknown health issues resulting from these jabs.
We now have the Qld government admitting that adverse events are not being followed up on. We have front line doctors working with alternative protocols using proven safe and inexpensive drugs, having incredible results using those protocols. And again I reference Dr Pierre Cory as he is perhaps the best known doctor on the front line working with a protocol using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But he is certainly not the only one. There are literally hundreds. He testified before a grand jury about the efficacy of this drug and has a slew of metadata to back up his own work. Unless you are calling this doctor and others like him liars, then you perhaps should consider that all that is put forward by the powers that be, may not be gospel.
We have Uttah Pradesh, an area of India with 241 million people and a very low vaccination rate, now declaring themselves "covid free". How did they achieve this? This was achieved with their government actively making available Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) to the general population. Other parts of India where the governments have either discourage the use of this drug, or as in the case in Australia, prevented its use, are still in the grip of Covid.
If this was truly a health issue, wouldn't the governments of the world be actively encouraging studies in all areas of preventative medicine as well as in the treatment of the disease? Why would Doctors and nurses be threatened with de-registration for speaking out? (And some that have spoken out have been suffered loss of their registration). Wouldn't the governments of the world be encouraging people to look to their nutrition and life styles to give themselves the best chance to avoid becoming ill? We know that obesity, second only to age, is the most significant contributing factor to the dangers of Covid 19.
If this was truly a health issue, why would there be such heavy censorship of everything and everyone that questions the narrative?
Perhaps this is not about health at all. When we zoom out to 30,000 feet, maybe we see a very different agenda.
Follow the money.
Who is profiting from the pandemic both in $$$, and in tightening their grip on control?
Lets look at 'Big Pharma'. (By the way, did you know that Moderna paid the NSW Government somewhere between $45 million and $65 million in grants? (It is of course hard to get an accurate figure, but the amount sits somewhere in that range).
But hey, when you are making around $250 million a week in revenue, who cares right?
Which industry spends the more $$ on government lobbyists in the USA than the next 2 biggest lobby groups - Oil and Defence - combined? Yeah, that's right, Big Pharma.
Who are the major share holders of ALL the big Pharma companies? Well lets see - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Alpahabet, Microsoft)? Well looky here - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls MSM? Well, there are 9 conglomerates that control 90% of MSM. But as you follow the $$ and find out who owns or controls those conglomerates, you find it is Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Same with food, same with oil, same with mining, same with travel, same with clothing and so it goes.
It is estimated that by the year 2028, just 2 investment firms will control 20 trillion $$ of business annually.
And then to top it off, who owns or controls Black Rock? Well, you won't be surprised to learn that it is Vanguard.
And who owns or controls Vanguard. Impossible to say - it is a private company. But let's not kid ourselves - its the usual suspects. Rockefeller, Rothschild, the British Royal Family, the Morgans ...you've heard the names.
And how do they move the trillions of $$ around the globe without attracting attention or even paying their share of taxes? They use not for profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Open Society Foundations (Soros), the Bush Foundation - and so it goes. And of course, who is the biggest contributor to the World Health Organisation? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, of course.
The World Economic Forum - you know, the elite who fly in on their private jets to Davos every year to have a gab fest on issue like climate change. The founder and mouth piece, Klaus Schwab, is the one who coined the phrase "Build Back Better" - the same catch cry taken up with such enthusiasm by sycophantic leaders such as Biden, Trudeau, Merkle, Arden, etc, etc. And who are the major sponsors of the WEC? Well, its the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Vanguard and the Soros group of foundations.
Starting to get the picture?
I apologise. I have rambled on too long and gotten way off topic.
I just encourage people to perhaps starting looking at things in a less myopic way. There's more at play here than a corona virus.

I’m just waiting for the next strain to come along, the vaccines most of you have taken is no longer effective, what then?

 

[swag_tiger]

The problem with this approach is that people die. People have thought exactly the same thing as you and died. That is worse case. People have also gotten long COVID or been really sick. You can minimise the chance of negative impacts via getting vaccinated.

You will probably be okay but dude healthy people have died.

I view not getting vaccinated as simply having a really really poor ability to assess your personal risk factor.

It also means you don’t care about society in general and health care workers in particular.

Lastly since the data is so one sided to me it also shows an inability to filter information accurately. This to me is the big issue of this pandemic. People for whatever reason suffer from disinformation.

"My SIL family and it’s a big family did exactly what you state you know other people have done - i.e. stay at home,dose up on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) and pray it works out. It did work out but they were sick.

I’ll add that in Australia Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) has not been considered a good treatment for COVID. There was a note sent to GP’s not to prescribe it. I have not seen a good study on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)."

Earl, this view point relies entirely on accepting the "official narrative". You are accepting that the numbers are accurate. You are accepting that the TGA's assessment of the efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is accurate. You are accepting that 'every death attributed' to Covid19 was in fact due to Covid19. (In Canada for example, where seasonal influenza deaths are usually in the order of 20,000, they had just 6 - yes 6, not 6000 - in 2020).You are accepting that the very strict time frame set by health authorities to consider injury or death post jab as possibly due to the injection is fair and reasonable. You are accepting that those few injuries or deaths accepted by the health authorities as being due to the jabs are the only injuries and deaths that have occurred as a result of the jabs. You are accepting that there will be no longer term and as yet unknown health issues resulting from these jabs.
We now have the Qld government admitting that adverse events are not being followed up on. We have front line doctors working with alternative protocols using proven safe and inexpensive drugs, having incredible results using those protocols. And again I reference Dr Pierre Cory as he is perhaps the best known doctor on the front line working with a protocol using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But he is certainly not the only one. There are literally hundreds. He testified before a grand jury about the efficacy of this drug and has a slew of metadata to back up his own work. Unless you are calling this doctor and others like him liars, then you perhaps should consider that all that is put forward by the powers that be, may not be gospel.
We have Uttah Pradesh, an area of India with 241 million people and a very low vaccination rate, now declaring themselves "covid free". How did they achieve this? This was achieved with their government actively making available Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) to the general population. Other parts of India where the governments have either discourage the use of this drug, or as in the case in Australia, prevented its use, are still in the grip of Covid.
If this was truly a health issue, wouldn't the governments of the world be actively encouraging studies in all areas of preventative medicine as well as in the treatment of the disease? Why would Doctors and nurses be threatened with de-registration for speaking out? (And some that have spoken out have been suffered loss of their registration). Wouldn't the governments of the world be encouraging people to look to their nutrition and life styles to give themselves the best chance to avoid becoming ill? We know that obesity, second only to age, is the most significant contributing factor to the dangers of Covid 19.
If this was truly a health issue, why would there be such heavy censorship of everything and everyone that questions the narrative?
Perhaps this is not about health at all. When we zoom out to 30,000 feet, maybe we see a very different agenda.
Follow the money.
Who is profiting from the pandemic both in $$$, and in tightening their grip on control?
Lets look at 'Big Pharma'. (By the way, did you know that Moderna paid the NSW Government somewhere between $45 million and $65 million in grants? (It is of course hard to get an accurate figure, but the amount sits somewhere in that range).
But hey, when you are making around $250 million a week in revenue, who cares right?
Which industry spends the more $$ on government lobbyists in the USA than the next 2 biggest lobby groups - Oil and Defence - combined? Yeah, that's right, Big Pharma.
Who are the major share holders of ALL the big Pharma companies? Well lets see - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Alpahabet, Microsoft)? Well looky here - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls MSM? Well, there are 9 conglomerates that control 90% of MSM. But as you follow the $$ and find out who owns or controls those conglomerates, you find it is Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Same with food, same with oil, same with mining, same with travel, same with clothing and so it goes.
It is estimated that by the year 2028, just 2 investment firms will control 20 trillion $$ of business annually.
And then to top it off, who owns or controls Black Rock? Well, you won't be surprised to learn that it is Vanguard.
And who owns or controls Vanguard. Impossible to say - it is a private company. But let's not kid ourselves - its the usual suspects. Rockefeller, Rothschild, the British Royal Family, the Morgans ...you've heard the names.
And how do they move the trillions of $$ around the globe without attracting attention or even paying their share of taxes? They use not for profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Open Society Foundations (Soros), the Bush Foundation - and so it goes. And of course, who is the biggest contributor to the World Health Organisation? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, of course.
The World Economic Forum - you know, the elite who fly in on their private jets to Davos every year to have a gab fest on issue like climate change. The founder and mouth piece, Klaus Schwab, is the one who coined the phrase "Build Back Better" - the same catch cry taken up with such enthusiasm by sycophantic leaders such as Biden, Trudeau, Merkle, Arden, etc, etc. And who are the major sponsors of the WEC? Well, its the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Vanguard and the Soros group of foundations.
Starting to get the picture?
I apologise. I have rambled on too long and gotten way off topic.
I just encourage people to perhaps starting looking at things in a less myopic way. There's more at play here than a corona virus.

I’m just waiting for the next strain to come along, the vaccines most of you have taken is no longer effective, what then?

You that's exactly the same with the flu shot. The reason we have boosters is that they are always mutating. And everyone will be effected so I don't see how being unvaxxed is a plus in this argument.

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

Any idea what long term booster shots will have on the body? Much research been done?

 

[swag_tiger]

Any idea what long term booster shots will have on the body? Much research been done?

The Boosters shot will be exactly the same as the shots you took the first time round . So there the research that has been done on the shots already applies to the boosters. The only thing is happening is that the boosters regenerate your bodies response to the virus.

 

[earl]

Earl, this view point relies entirely on accepting the “official narrative”. You are accepting that the numbers are accurate. You are accepting that the TGA’s assessment of the efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is accurate

A couple of points here:-

1. Yes I accept the official data. I've never seen such an amazing data-set. If you can provide better than do it. I don't think that is the problem.
2. I don't really accept the official narrative. I accept the results or massive studies.
3. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is a really interesting case. I'm pretty confident I posted this earlier but I can't be bothered going back to confirm. The issue with Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is that the studies are really poor. I'm pretty sure I posted that this is problematic because Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is cheap and there isn't money in it so it didn't get the big studies vaccines for instance received. It's not that I know for a fact it doesn't work. I haven't seen good studies like the studies in relation to vaccines. Your Dr example is a good example of the type of research into Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). It doesn't pass my smell test. I posted in this thread the best meta-analysis on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). The data for memory was listed as poor and the studies poorly compiled. Then on top of that I've read even more criticism of some of those studies. It's poor science.

You have some good points. I get it. It's just not a simple situation whereas the vaccine data is compelling.

Thanks for the discussion as well. I am not trying to be difficult and I hope we all get through with as little impact as possible to our health.

 

[earl]

The Boosters shot will be exactly the same as the shots you took the first time round . So there the research that has been done on the shots already applies to the boosters. The only thing is happening is that the boosters regenerate your bodies response to the virus.

The effectiveness in stopping infections is waning significantly after say 6 months. We don't know what will happen with boosters but the chance of their being any adverse reaction above and beyond what we've already seen I think is basically non-existant.

The flu is a different virus to COVID as well. It mutates a lot more than COVID. I don't think we will end up having booster shots every 6 months. That to me would be a massive failure and a win for the COVID anti-vaxxers.

 

[Eyeofthetiger 0]

The Boosters shot will be exactly the same as the shots you took the first time round . So there the research that has been done on the shots already applies to the boosters. The only thing is happening is that the boosters regenerate your bodies response to the virus.

The effectiveness in stopping infections is waning significantly after say 6 months. We don't know what will happen with boosters but the chance of their being any adverse reaction above and beyond what we've already seen I think is basically non-existant.

The flu is a different virus to COVID as well. It mutates a lot more than COVID. I don't think we will end up having booster shots every 6 months. That to me would be a massive failure and a win for the COVID anti-vaxxers.

Hope your right mate. Hopefully what you put in your body doesn’t cause other issues and kill you in the long run. I won’t have to worry about that. Just that my natural immunity is strong enough to beat COVID. That’s the way our bodies are supposed to work and why we were born with an immune system.

 

[Tiger5150]

The problem with this approach is that people die. People have thought exactly the same thing as you and died. That is worse case. People have also gotten long COVID or been really sick. You can minimise the chance of negative impacts via getting vaccinated.

You will probably be okay but dude healthy people have died.

I view not getting vaccinated as simply having a really really poor ability to assess your personal risk factor.

It also means you don’t care about society in general and health care workers in particular.

Lastly since the data is so one sided to me it also shows an inability to filter information accurately. This to me is the big issue of this pandemic. People for whatever reason suffer from disinformation.

"My SIL family and it’s a big family did exactly what you state you know other people have done - i.e. stay at home,dose up on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) and pray it works out. It did work out but they were sick.

I’ll add that in Australia Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) has not been considered a good treatment for COVID. There was a note sent to GP’s not to prescribe it. I have not seen a good study on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)."

Earl, this view point relies entirely on accepting the "official narrative". You are accepting that the numbers are accurate. You are accepting that the TGA's assessment of the efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is accurate. You are accepting that 'every death attributed' to Covid19 was in fact due to Covid19. (In Canada for example, where seasonal influenza deaths are usually in the order of 20,000, they had just 6 - yes 6, not 6000 - in 2020).You are accepting that the very strict time frame set by health authorities to consider injury or death post jab as possibly due to the injection is fair and reasonable. You are accepting that those few injuries or deaths accepted by the health authorities as being due to the jabs are the only injuries and deaths that have occurred as a result of the jabs. You are accepting that there will be no longer term and as yet unknown health issues resulting from these jabs.
We now have the Qld government admitting that adverse events are not being followed up on. We have front line doctors working with alternative protocols using proven safe and inexpensive drugs, having incredible results using those protocols. And again I reference Dr Pierre Cory as he is perhaps the best known doctor on the front line working with a protocol using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But he is certainly not the only one. There are literally hundreds. He testified before a grand jury about the efficacy of this drug and has a slew of metadata to back up his own work. Unless you are calling this doctor and others like him liars, then you perhaps should consider that all that is put forward by the powers that be, may not be gospel.
We have Uttah Pradesh, an area of India with 241 million people and a very low vaccination rate, now declaring themselves "covid free". How did they achieve this? This was achieved with their government actively making available Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) to the general population. Other parts of India where the governments have either discourage the use of this drug, or as in the case in Australia, prevented its use, are still in the grip of Covid.
If this was truly a health issue, wouldn't the governments of the world be actively encouraging studies in all areas of preventative medicine as well as in the treatment of the disease? Why would Doctors and nurses be threatened with de-registration for speaking out? (And some that have spoken out have been suffered loss of their registration). Wouldn't the governments of the world be encouraging people to look to their nutrition and life styles to give themselves the best chance to avoid becoming ill? We know that obesity, second only to age, is the most significant contributing factor to the dangers of Covid 19.
If this was truly a health issue, why would there be such heavy censorship of everything and everyone that questions the narrative?
Perhaps this is not about health at all. When we zoom out to 30,000 feet, maybe we see a very different agenda.
Follow the money.
Who is profiting from the pandemic both in $$$, and in tightening their grip on control?
Lets look at 'Big Pharma'. (By the way, did you know that Moderna paid the NSW Government somewhere between $45 million and $65 million in grants? (It is of course hard to get an accurate figure, but the amount sits somewhere in that range).
But hey, when you are making around $250 million a week in revenue, who cares right?
Which industry spends the more $$ on government lobbyists in the USA than the next 2 biggest lobby groups - Oil and Defence - combined? Yeah, that's right, Big Pharma.
Who are the major share holders of ALL the big Pharma companies? Well lets see - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Alpahabet, Microsoft)? Well looky here - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls MSM? Well, there are 9 conglomerates that control 90% of MSM. But as you follow the $$ and find out who owns or controls those conglomerates, you find it is Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Same with food, same with oil, same with mining, same with travel, same with clothing and so it goes.
It is estimated that by the year 2028, just 2 investment firms will control 20 trillion $$ of business annually.
And then to top it off, who owns or controls Black Rock? Well, you won't be surprised to learn that it is Vanguard.
And who owns or controls Vanguard. Impossible to say - it is a private company. But let's not kid ourselves - its the usual suspects. Rockefeller, Rothschild, the British Royal Family, the Morgans ...you've heard the names.
And how do they move the trillions of $$ around the globe without attracting attention or even paying their share of taxes? They use not for profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Open Society Foundations (Soros), the Bush Foundation - and so it goes. And of course, who is the biggest contributor to the World Health Organisation? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, of course.
The World Economic Forum - you know, the elite who fly in on their private jets to Davos every year to have a gab fest on issue like climate change. The founder and mouth piece, Klaus Schwab, is the one who coined the phrase "Build Back Better" - the same catch cry taken up with such enthusiasm by sycophantic leaders such as Biden, Trudeau, Merkle, Arden, etc, etc. And who are the major sponsors of the WEC? Well, its the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Vanguard and the Soros group of foundations.
Starting to get the picture?
I apologise. I have rambled on too long and gotten way off topic.
I just encourage people to perhaps starting looking at things in a less myopic way. There's more at play here than a corona virus.


 

[swag_tiger]

The Boosters shot will be exactly the same as the shots you took the first time round . So there the research that has been done on the shots already applies to the boosters. The only thing is happening is that the boosters regenerate your bodies response to the virus.

The effectiveness in stopping infections is waning significantly after say 6 months. We don't know what will happen with boosters but the chance of their being any adverse reaction above and beyond what we've already seen I think is basically non-existant.

The flu is a different virus to COVID as well. It mutates a lot more than COVID. I don't think we will end up having booster shots every 6 months. That to me would be a massive failure and a win for the COVID anti-vaxxers.

Hope your right mate. Hopefully what you put in your body doesn’t cause other issues and kill you in the long run. I won’t have to worry about that. Just that my natural immunity is strong enough to beat COVID. That’s the way our bodies are supposed to work and why we were born with an immune system.

Yes but your body doesn't develop a immune system for every virus straight away. Before Covid no one have the proper antibodies to work against the virus as it was a completely new thing.

 

[Tiger5150]

2. I don't really accept the official narrative. **I accept the results or massive studies.**
3. Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is a really interesting case. I'm pretty confident I posted this earlier but I can't be bothered going back to confirm. **The issue with Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is that the studies are really poor.** I'm pretty sure I posted that this is problematic because Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is cheap and there isn't money in it so it didn't get the big studies vaccines for instance received. It's not that I know for a fact it doesn't work. I haven't seen good studies like the studies in relation to vaccines. Your Dr example is a good example of the type of research into Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). **It doesn't pass my smell test**. I posted in this thread the best meta-analysis on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). **The data for memory was listed as poor** and the studies poorly compiled. Then on top of that I've read even more criticism of some of those studies. It's poor science.

You have some good points. I get it. It's just not a simple situation whereas the vaccine data is compelling.

Thanks for the discussion as well. I am not trying to be difficult and I hope we all get through with as little impact as possible to our health.

Earl I'm not being argumentative here at all, but need to correct something you are saying. You are always to careful to be truthful and therefore I know you will appreciate the correction.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

The Tess Lowrie Meta Analysis that you and I both posted is a meta analysis. it is not a scientific trial or study, it is a meta analysis which is a much higher level of scientific certainty because the actual scientific process is to grade all studies for scientific veracity. Your "smell test" is irrelevant because that is exactly what a meta analysis is, it grades the data based on scientifically approved and accepted methods which are listed in the meta analysis.

Here is the correction. You state that the tests were poor (already covered that, thats what a meta analysis is for) but you also state that the "data was listed as poor". This is incorrect. The meta analysis finds that the evidence for Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) as a prophylactic or as a late stage therapeutic had low certainty of evidence. Low certainty is the second lowest grade of four. The meta analysis found that there was a **moderate (Second highest of four grades) certainty of evidence that it works well as a therapeutic in early stages**. High, Moderate, Low, Very low are not arbitrary opinions of you, me or Tess Lowrie, it is a world wide accepted system called GRADE that is used for most scientific study.

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelinesforguidelines/develop/assessing-certainty-evidence

Not looking for an argument, but if you are going to make these statements about the study, you should make them from an informed position.

 

[Tiger5150]

The Boosters shot will be exactly the same as the shots you took the first time round . So there the research that has been done on the shots already applies to the boosters. The only thing is happening is that the boosters regenerate your bodies response to the virus.

The effectiveness in stopping infections is waning significantly after say 6 months. We don't know what will happen with boosters but the chance of their being any adverse reaction above and beyond what we've already seen I think is basically non-existant.

The flu is a different virus to COVID as well. It mutates a lot more than COVID. I don't think we will end up having booster shots every 6 months. That to me would be a massive failure and a win for the COVID anti-vaxxers.

Hope your right mate. Hopefully what you put in your body doesn’t cause other issues and kill you in the long run.

At the end of the day, for all of us, you and me, that is the risk/benefit analysis we undertake. For me, I know that if I catch it I have around and slightly upwards of 1% chance of dying of COVID, around 10% chance of being hospitalised (not death but unpleasant). Need to factor into that the chances of me catching COVID in the first place, but I would think that if COVID persists and I am unvaccinated, probably IMO a 30-50% chance I will catch it at some time. This equates to something like a 0.3-0.5% chance of dying of COVID unvaccinated, 3-5% chance of hospitalisation.

For me then, for being unvaccinated to be a better option, I need the vaccine to kill 112,500 people in Australia (based on 90% population vaccinated and a 0.5% death rate).

I have made my decision and Im happy with it. You will no doubt run your own risk/benefit analysis and you have come to the unvaxxed decision and that is fine for you but it has to be said that your decision is an easier decision because 90% of the population made the other decision.

I won’t have to worry about that. Just that my natural immunity is strong enough to beat COVID. ***That’s the way our bodies are supposed to work and why we were born with an immune system.***

Our immune systems dont work well with a novel threat and is not a fail safe against all pathogens....Ebola, Smallpox, and 1% of COVID cases.

 

[Harvey]

The problem with this approach is that people die. People have thought exactly the same thing as you and died. That is worse case. People have also gotten long COVID or been really sick. You can minimise the chance of negative impacts via getting vaccinated.

You will probably be okay but dude healthy people have died.

I view not getting vaccinated as simply having a really really poor ability to assess your personal risk factor.

It also means you don’t care about society in general and health care workers in particular.

Lastly since the data is so one sided to me it also shows an inability to filter information accurately. This to me is the big issue of this pandemic. People for whatever reason suffer from disinformation.

"My SIL family and it’s a big family did exactly what you state you know other people have done - i.e. stay at home,dose up on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) and pray it works out. It did work out but they were sick.

I’ll add that in Australia Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) has not been considered a good treatment for COVID. There was a note sent to GP’s not to prescribe it. I have not seen a good study on Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective)."

Earl, this view point relies entirely on accepting the "official narrative". You are accepting that the numbers are accurate. You are accepting that the TGA's assessment of the efficacy of Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) is accurate. You are accepting that 'every death attributed' to Covid19 was in fact due to Covid19. (In Canada for example, where seasonal influenza deaths are usually in the order of 20,000, they had just 6 - yes 6, not 6000 - in 2020).You are accepting that the very strict time frame set by health authorities to consider injury or death post jab as possibly due to the injection is fair and reasonable. You are accepting that those few injuries or deaths accepted by the health authorities as being due to the jabs are the only injuries and deaths that have occurred as a result of the jabs. You are accepting that there will be no longer term and as yet unknown health issues resulting from these jabs.
We now have the Qld government admitting that adverse events are not being followed up on. We have front line doctors working with alternative protocols using proven safe and inexpensive drugs, having incredible results using those protocols. And again I reference Dr Pierre Cory as he is perhaps the best known doctor on the front line working with a protocol using Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective). But he is certainly not the only one. There are literally hundreds. He testified before a grand jury about the efficacy of this drug and has a slew of metadata to back up his own work. Unless you are calling this doctor and others like him liars, then you perhaps should consider that all that is put forward by the powers that be, may not be gospel.
We have Uttah Pradesh, an area of India with 241 million people and a very low vaccination rate, now declaring themselves "covid free". How did they achieve this? This was achieved with their government actively making available Ivermectin (a drug which the clinical evidence shows is not statistically effective) to the general population. Other parts of India where the governments have either discourage the use of this drug, or as in the case in Australia, prevented its use, are still in the grip of Covid.
If this was truly a health issue, wouldn't the governments of the world be actively encouraging studies in all areas of preventative medicine as well as in the treatment of the disease? Why would Doctors and nurses be threatened with de-registration for speaking out? (And some that have spoken out have been suffered loss of their registration). Wouldn't the governments of the world be encouraging people to look to their nutrition and life styles to give themselves the best chance to avoid becoming ill? We know that obesity, second only to age, is the most significant contributing factor to the dangers of Covid 19.
If this was truly a health issue, why would there be such heavy censorship of everything and everyone that questions the narrative?
Perhaps this is not about health at all. When we zoom out to 30,000 feet, maybe we see a very different agenda.
Follow the money.
Who is profiting from the pandemic both in $$$, and in tightening their grip on control?
Lets look at 'Big Pharma'. (By the way, did you know that Moderna paid the NSW Government somewhere between $45 million and $65 million in grants? (It is of course hard to get an accurate figure, but the amount sits somewhere in that range).
But hey, when you are making around $250 million a week in revenue, who cares right?
Which industry spends the more $$ on government lobbyists in the USA than the next 2 biggest lobby groups - Oil and Defence - combined? Yeah, that's right, Big Pharma.
Who are the major share holders of ALL the big Pharma companies? Well lets see - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls Big Tech (Facebook, Twitter, Alpahabet, Microsoft)? Well looky here - Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street.
Who owns or controls MSM? Well, there are 9 conglomerates that control 90% of MSM. But as you follow the $$ and find out who owns or controls those conglomerates, you find it is Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Same with food, same with oil, same with mining, same with travel, same with clothing and so it goes.
It is estimated that by the year 2028, just 2 investment firms will control 20 trillion $$ of business annually.
And then to top it off, who owns or controls Black Rock? Well, you won't be surprised to learn that it is Vanguard.
And who owns or controls Vanguard. Impossible to say - it is a private company. But let's not kid ourselves - its the usual suspects. Rockefeller, Rothschild, the British Royal Family, the Morgans ...you've heard the names.
And how do they move the trillions of $$ around the globe without attracting attention or even paying their share of taxes? They use not for profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Open Society Foundations (Soros), the Bush Foundation - and so it goes. And of course, who is the biggest contributor to the World Health Organisation? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, of course.
The World Economic Forum - you know, the elite who fly in on their private jets to Davos every year to have a gab fest on issue like climate change. The founder and mouth piece, Klaus Schwab, is the one who coined the phrase "Build Back Better" - the same catch cry taken up with such enthusiasm by sycophantic leaders such as Biden, Trudeau, Merkle, Arden, etc, etc. And who are the major sponsors of the WEC? Well, its the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Vanguard and the Soros group of foundations.
Starting to get the picture?
I apologise. I have rambled on too long and gotten way off topic.
I just encourage people to perhaps starting looking at things in a less myopic way. There's more at play here than a corona virus.

You left out the Lizard people. I think they have some involvement in this

 

[swag_tiger]

First dose in NSW is up at 93.5% now. Full vaccinated I at 87%

 

[swag_tiger]

77'000 tests done in the last 24 hours as well.

 

[hank37w]

Maybe a tax on repeated posts in the COVID thread..

$10 per post..saying the same thing 600 thousand times..

Nice little earner that.