Armageddon Thread

[wendybr]

 

4 hours ago, sonar said:

As far as I am aware no one has stated that boosters will be mandatory. Happy to be corrected if you have a link to any Fed or State govts that are planning mandatory boosters.

 

I think (but not sure) in Israel, the booster is required to maintain your "fully vaccinated " status.

It would need to be - given how, after 7 months or so, the protection has plummeted.

[wendybr]

4 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Wait wait wait. Let’s get something straight. The science is clear. If you are vaccinated, your chance of getting Covid from an infected person is significantly LESS. It is not the same as an unvaccinated person. Ask Dr John Campbell, he has gone over this.
 

If a vaccinated person gets a breakthrough case then Yes, it seems they have a similar viral load to an unvaccinated person in nasal testing. But breakthrough cases are the exception NOT the rule.  
 

So yes, vaccinated people are LESS dangerous than the unvaccinated. 

Look at his clip from last night clip I posted above (I think i did).

It's now being conceded that EVERYONE is going to get it in Britain. EVERYONE - sooner or later.

And they have already established that you can transmit it even if you are vaccinated.

Nothing is as it was even a month or so ago.

 

[Unlimited]

54 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Yes there is this.

But do individuals in Australia in 2021 have the right or "freedom" to determine what medical procedures they accept or decline?

That's a slippery slope, you know, to mandate a medical procedure...for whatever reason.

For the common good, for the good of this planet, we'd be infinitely better off with a smaller population. Should we mandate a one child policy, and sterilization of citizens after they have had a child?

Where does it stop?

This stuff is unprecedented.

Other countries are NOT going down this pathway.

And I have ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been a "for the collective good" type person, rather than a "mah freedoms" type person. ALWAYS.

I don't disagree with you that it's a tricky one. But where I'm leaning towards is if we're going to cater for the 25% of the population who are anti-vax, where does that leave the other 75%? The majority?

Right now, it's unsafe to open up because the majority are unvaccinated and the disease will get out there and people will die. The science says we can reopen more safely at around 70-80% vaccination. If the take-up stays at 75% and there's an impasse, who wins? I think at that point, it just has to be, "Well, you know what. We gave you plenty of time to get it, you are a danger to the community so you're not allowed to go out." The benefits of the collective and majority win.

Just because it's a medical procedure doesn't change anything. If an unsilent minority are keeping the majority from exercising their rights and their freedoms, then at some point something has to give. And what is going to "give" are the rights of the unsilent minority.

Is it fair? I see the points for and against, but in a democracy, I think the will of the people and the majority needs to win out.

 

41 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Unlimited said:

Society has rules and expectations.

I remember when I wanted to apply for some jobs at 18, I was told to have a driver's licence for some of them. That doesn't tear the fabric of society or create some caste system. Am I going to chuck a fit because I can't provide say, financial advice or legal advice in this state or do I accept that society and the government has mandated standards that I need to reach?

If I want to participate in society, I need to follow certain rules and etiquette. Some rules are mandatory, like legal ones. Others are tacit, like having manners and being polite. Society is not a "free for all" where everyone can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

In a nutshell, freedom is not free

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mandating someone having a driver's licence in order to get a job cannot be compared to mandating that they have a medical procedure in order to keep a job.

Mandating seat belts for all is a bit closer, except that buckling yourself into a seat belt per se will not potentially kill someone (even if the rate is 1 in a million, as we're told it is, for deaths from the vaccines)

There are people (sure a small percentage - and hey- they're doing it for the common good) but there  are a proportion who do  suffer significant vaccine injuries. Globallly it would be 10s of thousands - or more.

Our Govt, rolling out their compensation scheme for people whose injuries require medical expenses of greater than $5000 is evidence of this.

As are the indemnities against GPs administering vaccines....and indemnities against the manufactures for that matter.

We taxpayers will be paying the compensation- not the manufacturers or the people administering the jabs.

Lawyers need to complete various continual education to keep their membership year on year and to be continually able to practice law. But because there's a risk of dying with the medical procedure, we somehow get all up in arms about it.

Sure, tens of thousands may die from the vaccine. But globally there are millions of deaths from COVID. You're stuffed either way with a chance of dying but if you don't get the vaccine, you risk COVID which has a higher death rate. And if you are a nurse or in the medical profession, you have a higher chance of contacting someone with it in the first place.

It doesn't help that this dumbass government loudly promoted this indemnity scheme because now it makes people like yourself second guess the thing.

 

40 minutes ago, Stokz said:

The UK's vaccine advisors have declined to recommend the vaccination of healthy older children (12-15) against COVID-19, saying the direct health benefits are "marginal".

With just two per million of healthy children needing intensive care treatment for COVID-19, the JCVI said the "margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal program".

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100434204

So you guys say trust the science - how do 2 very similar countries (UK/AUS) come to 2 different outcomes regarding the same topic. 

Because the pandemic is current. We can't expect definitive results right away which goes with the ATAGI changes in recommendation. That follows onto:

32 minutes ago, Stokz said:

But we are mandating something that is still on trial and hasn’t got any long term data on it. The vaccine only came out 9 months ago.

I could live with a mandate if a long term independent study showed good results.

 

In an ideal world, we'd have great data.

But thing is, people are dying. So you either risk taking a 1-in-1,000,000 chance of dying from a vaccine or catching COVID which has closer to a 1-in-1,000 chance of you dying.

I would be more accepting of this argument if the vaccine was rolled out yesterday.

According to Bloomberg, 5.43 billion shots have been administered (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). In the US alone, 374 million shots.

If you want to look at Australia, all I'm hearing on the news lately are the 100+ people dying from COVID in the current wave, not of the 5-10 people who died after taking an AZ vaccine.

[Carns]

Vaccinating 12-15 year olds is about minimising the potential spread, rather than needing to overly protect them from the potential impact of Covid.

If a 12 year old gets it at school (for example) they'll potentially spread it at home/sport/socially. Whereas if they are vaccinated the chance of spread is lower.

[sonar]

2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

 

I think (but not sure) in Israel, the booster is required to maintain your "fully vaccinated " status.

It would need to be - given how, after 7 months or so, the protection has plummeted.

I'm talking Aus.

To the best of my knowledge no one here is advocating it. The same as vaccines.....they are not mandatory

[wendybr]

23 hours ago, wendybr said:

 

 

This one.

[Unlimited]

18 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Wait wait wait. Let’s get something straight. The science is clear. If you are vaccinated, your chance of getting Covid from an infected person is significantly LESS. It is not the same as an unvaccinated person. Ask Dr John Campbell, he has gone over this.
 

If a vaccinated person gets a breakthrough case then Yes, it seems they have a similar viral load to an unvaccinated person in nasal testing. But breakthrough cases are the exception NOT the rule.  
 

So yes, vaccinated people are LESS dangerous than the unvaccinated. 

And even if it only protects yourself, why not take it? It still protects yourself

The argument that "oh I'll catch it anyway" isn't even relevant. Like somehow it's now a question of being thoughtful for others? "Oh look at me, I'm not going to get the vaccine because I might affect someone else if I catch COVID"

Let's be clear: if someone catches COVID in this case, they will be passing it onto those same "other people" they are trying to be super thoughtful of by refusing the vaccine.

So in any case, the best thing to do is to... get the vaccine.

[marron]

1 hour ago, wendybr said:

No of course not. There is no doubt misinformation.

People self medicating is foolish.

But all the stuff about treatments has come from medical people at the front line.

And people who who have heard them don't trust the pronouncements of the WHO, the CDC, the NDA etc, and the rest of the medical establishment (whom they see as hand in glove with Big Pharma)...when they have ignored these doctors.

I would say that negating the experiences and insights of these doctors is very questionable.

And labelling their observations  and medical recommendations at the front-line as "misinformation" is also very questionable.

I listen to their stories of treating their ICU patients at the start of the pandemic, and I find them compelling.

Re the media's stance - there is nothing investigative at all in their approach. Nothing at all of any detail, no mention of any of the legitmate medical people, no discussion of the specifics of the vaccines or reasons for hesitancy or resistance.

Discussion is so shallow. Labelled as misinformation, with zero insight. 

 

PS there are tunnels in the rabbit hole that I've never explored re global conspiracies by the elites to depopulate the world, the "plandemic", the "scamdemic" etc.

No idea what misinformation flourishes in those tunnels.

 

But it is still anecdotal.

The media can't just keep reporting on anecdotal stuff. At the very least that becomes misinformation, because it presents it as being something that is proven to be true, if they repeatedly voice claims of people who have not the actual data to back it up.  Misinformation doesn't mean something is not true, but it can mean that this truth is misrepresented or not given a context.

The treatments haven't been ignored. There is testing going on as we speak. Again, language is so important here. They haven't been ignored. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true (except it does make it true in the minds of people who keep reading it). Leaping from "ignoring" to "negating". Waiting for the outcomes of clinical trials is not negating or ignoring.

You may find reports compelling, but people who make decisions about what is safe to put into the population can't rely on something seeming compelling.

There is investigative stuff in the approach of the media. The article I posted from today talks to experts and provides good background info on processes and things happening to try and move things forward.

 

[Cynth]

11 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Look at his clip from last night clip I posted above (I think i did).

It's now being conceded that EVERYONE is going to get it in Britain. EVERYONE - sooner or later.

And they have already established that you can transmit it even if you are vaccinated.

Nothing is as it was even a month or so ago.

 

I’ve seen the clip. I said that above. The community will be saturated with Covid eventually. This is modelling not the reality right now. But the current data is that vaccinated people are not being infected anywhere near as readily as unvaccinated people. 

[Davo]

57 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Unlimited said:

Society has rules and expectations.

I remember when I wanted to apply for some jobs at 18, I was told to have a driver's licence for some of them. That doesn't tear the fabric of society or create some caste system. Am I going to chuck a fit because I can't provide say, financial advice or legal advice in this state or do I accept that society and the government has mandated standards that I need to reach?

If I want to participate in society, I need to follow certain rules and etiquette. Some rules are mandatory, like legal ones. Others are tacit, like having manners and being polite. Society is not a "free for all" where everyone can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

In a nutshell, freedom is not free

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mandating someone having a driver's licence in order to get a job cannot be compared to mandating that they have a medical procedure in order to keep a job.

Mandating seat belts for all is a bit closer, except that buckling yourself into a seat belt per se will not potentially kill someone (even if the rate is 1 in a million, as we're told it is, for deaths from the vaccines)

There are people (sure a small percentage - and hey- they're doing it for the common good) but there  are a proportion who do  suffer significant vaccine injuries. Globallly it would be 10s of thousands - or more.

Our Govt, rolling out their compensation scheme for people whose injuries require medical expenses of greater than $5000 is evidence of this.

As are the indemnities against GPs administering vaccines....and indemnities against the manufactures for that matter.

We taxpayers will be paying the compensation- not the manufacturers or the people administering the jabs.

If we’re going with the seatbelt argument, what about airbags?

There are a narrow set of circumstances in some low speed accidents where having an airbag is more dangerous than not having one. The government has made airbags mandatory on all new cars, knowing that there will statistically be a certain number of people who will die in accidents that they would have otherwise survived without an airbag. They do this because the benefits in pretty much any other accident massively outweigh the tiny chance of the added risks resulting in harm.

The risks of the vaccine are about as tiny as those of airbags, and the benefits are even greater as an airbag only protects you, while a vaccine protects you and the wider community by preventing the spread of the disease.

I don’t remember people marching in the streets protesting their “right to choose” whether they had an airbag in their car.

[Stokz]

24 minutes ago, Carns said:

Vaccinating 12-15 year olds is about minimising the potential spread, rather than needing to overly protect them from the potential impact of Covid.

If a 12 year old gets it at school (for example) they'll potentially spread it at home/sport/socially. Whereas if they are vaccinated the chance of spread is lower.

See call me selfish, but I’m not going to take a chance on my child’s health but getting them vaccinated if the vaccination provides little or no health benefits.

As for them spreading it, the adults are vaccinated - so what’s the danger? 

[lloydy136]

1 hour ago, wendybr said:

Mandates are what you'd expect in China...not here.

This pandemic, and how it has been handled, is shredding peoples' businesses, their livelihoods  and the economy.

Mandating vaccines which will cost people their employment if they don't submit, and their ability to interact in society, is introducing  a new caste system, which will shred the values of our society as we know it.

Wilcannia average male life expectancy 35 years

Distance to nearest fully featured hospital 550 km

Household income half overall Australian average

 

The pandemic has exposed the flaws in our society - east vs west sydney, salaried vs casual workers, public vs private schooling but the last few weeks have shined a light on the fact that there is an underclass living in 3rd world conditions in one of the richest nations in the world. We already have a pretty distinct caste system in place - vacc mandates will just add a little nuance to it.

 

[marron]

The danger is that it increases the chances I get it and pass it on to someone else who is at risk without knowing. That's the danger.

 

6 minutes ago, Davo said:

If we’re going with the seatbelt argument, what about airbags?

There are a narrow set of circumstances in some low speed accidents where having an airbag is more dangerous than not having one. The government has made airbags mandatory on all new cars, knowing that there will statistically be a certain number of people who will die in accidents that they would have otherwise survived without an airbag. They do this because the benefits in pretty much any other accident massively outweigh the tiny chance of the added risks resulting in harm.

The risks of the vaccine are about as tiny as those of airbags, and the benefits are even greater as an airbag only protects you, while a vaccine protects you and the wider community by preventing the spread of the disease.

I don’t remember people marching in the streets protesting their “right to choose” whether they had an airbag in their car.

I also don't remember people marching in the streets protesting Dutton's ability to interfere in our lives and increase police powers. But vaccine is a pre-approved talking point for a hodge-podge of other issues, and that isn't, so.

[marron]

Just now, lloydy136 said:

Wilcannia average male life expectancy 35 years

Distance to nearest fully featured hospital 550 km

Household income half overall Australian average

 

The pandemic has exposed the flaws in our society - east vs west sydney, salaried vs casual workers, public vs private schooling but the last few weeks have shined a light on the fact that there is an underclass living in 3rd world conditions in one of the richest nations in the world. We already have a pretty distinct caste system in place - vacc mandates will just add a little nuance to it.

 

Is Wilcannia one of the places where they have had to be trucking inbottled water for the last few years as well? IMagine not having the right to have access to clean drinking water because the government sold it all off upstream.

Big big protests about that I seem to recall. Lots of people talking about conspiracies to **** over the population by removing their choices and so on.

 

[lloydy136]

8 minutes ago, marron said:

Is Wilcannia one of the places where they have had to be trucking inbottled water for the last few years as well? IMagine not having the right to have access to clean drinking water because the government sold it all off upstream.

Big big protests about that I seem to recall. Lots of people talking about conspiracies to **** over the population by removing their choices and so on.

 

sure was (one of the towns - walgett was the other)

[Unlimited]

41 minutes ago, lloydy136 said:

The pandemic has exposed the flaws in our society - east vs west sydney, salaried vs casual workers, public vs private schooling but the last few weeks have shined a light on the fact that there is an underclass living in 3rd world conditions in one of the richest nations in the world. We already have a pretty distinct caste system in place - vacc mandates will just add a little nuance to it.

 

Ooft, that's deep.

Gets right to the heart of WSW. People think it's just a football rivalry? Nope. Not in the slightest.

[marron]

Yeah. Cops and army on the streets while hipsters sink lattes by the hundred on the beach, the truth of all of that can be disputed a bit, but it highlights the whole thing.

Still though it's kind of nothing compared to what regional areas are copping (and will cop). People are not able to get access to food, services etc under rules and everything, and the governement could have done a lot more to try and prevent the spread into those areas (yeah it's fine to leave sydney if you are house hunting holy ****), and then once out there the level of support and lack of understanding as to what reality is for people in regional areas has been criminal.

Victoria is going redder by the day with this, the libs can basically give up on it right now you'd think, they are not winning anyone over down there back; it will be interesting to see what happens in regional areas, and how much the nats can distance themselves from gladys.

[theseeker]

1 hour ago, lloydy136 said:

Wilcannia average male life expectancy 35 years

Distance to nearest fully featured hospital 550 km

Household income half overall Australian average

 

The pandemic has exposed the flaws in our society - east vs west sydney, salaried vs casual workers, public vs private schooling but the last few weeks have shined a light on the fact that there is an underclass living in 3rd world conditions in one of the richest nations in the world. We already have a pretty distinct caste system in place - vacc mandates will just add a little nuance to it.

 

Living in 3rd world conditions ? Every year in excess of 30 BILLION is spent on an indigenous population of around 600,000. Third world would be where there is no social security , do your best , and that is estimated at 4 billion people around the world. In Australia with social security and the extensive charities there is no reason why anyone in Australia needs to go to bed on an empty stomach.  

[wendybr]

Discussion from the US today...

 

[wendybr]

 

2 hours ago, sonar said:

I'm talking Aus.

To the best of my knowledge no one here is advocating it. The same as vaccines.....they are not mandatory

Booster is mandated in Israel - to maintain fully vaxxed status - people have a few months.

In Oz - what happens OS happens here - although of course, different countries have different approaches, and it remains to be seen whether we will follow places like France, or like Denmark - both with different approaches.

[sonar]

Productivity Commission estimates that only $5.6 billion or 18.6% of the $30 billion  refer to is provided through Indigenous-specific or targeted services. The Productivity Commission does not examine how much of this $5.6 billion actually goes to Indigenous organisations within community or Indigenous peoples themselves – and how much is spent on government businesses.

But how much of that $30.3 billion is spent on Indigenous-specific programs?

First, $5.7 billion of that amount comes from general government expenditure that has nothing specifically to do with Indigenous Australians (defence, foreign affairs and industry assistance), but is seen to benefit everyone.

Second, around one in five Indigenous Australians live in remote areas, where the cost of providing many services is significantly higher. So, much of the spending is to achieve the same level of services that others are accustomed to (though arguably it fails to do so in many policy areas).

Third, Australia has a highly targeted social security system with support based on family and individual circumstances. The Productivity Commission estimates that 68.5% of the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous expenditure is “because of greater need, and because of the younger age profile of the population.”

[sonar]

2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

 

Booster is mandated in Israel - to maintain fully vaxxed status - people have a few months.

In Oz - what happens OS happens here - although of course, different countries have different approaches, and it remains to be seen whether we will follow places like France, or like Denmark - both with different approaches.

The fact remains at present it is not mandatory and I have high doubts it will be. 

[wendybr]

2 hours ago, Davo said:

If we’re going with the seatbelt argument, what about airbags?

There are a narrow set of circumstances in some low speed accidents where having an airbag is more dangerous than not having one. The government has made airbags mandatory on all new cars, knowing that there will statistically be a certain number of people who will die in accidents that they would have otherwise survived without an airbag. They do this because the benefits in pretty much any other accident massively outweigh the tiny chance of the added risks resulting in harm.

The risks of the vaccine are about as tiny as those of airbags, and the benefits are even greater as an airbag only protects you, while a vaccine protects you and the wider community by preventing the spread of the disease.

I don’t remember people marching in the streets protesting their “right to choose” whether they had an airbag in their car.

But what's being conceded now in the UK and elsewhere is that nothing is going to prevent the spread of the disease.

[wendybr]

 

^^^^^^

Quote

 

If you haven't already- just watch the first few minutes of this.

YES - it's the UK...but we will follow.

[theseeker]

6 minutes ago, sonar said:

Productivity Commission estimates that only $5.6 billion or 18.6% of the $30 billion  refer to is provided through Indigenous-specific or targeted services. The Productivity Commission does not examine how much of this $5.6 billion actually goes to Indigenous organisations within community or Indigenous peoples themselves – and how much is spent on government businesses.

But how much of that $30.3 billion is spent on Indigenous-specific programs?

First, $5.7 billion of that amount comes from general government expenditure that has nothing specifically to do with Indigenous Australians (defence, foreign affairs and industry assistance), but is seen to benefit everyone.

Second, around one in five Indigenous Australians live in remote areas, where the cost of providing many services is significantly higher. So, much of the spending is to achieve the same level of services that others are accustomed to (though arguably it fails to do so in many policy areas).

Third, Australia has a highly targeted social security system with support based on family and individual circumstances. The Productivity Commission estimates that 68.5% of the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous expenditure is “because of greater need, and because of the younger age profile of the population.”

30 billion is the correct figure. 

But my point was where does the 3rd world comparison come from. It's bullshyte.

[Stokz]

2 hours ago, marron said:

The danger is that it increases the chances I get it and pass it on to someone else who is at risk without knowing. That's the danger.

How are they at risk if they’ve had the vaccine ? 

[wendybr]

8 minutes ago, sonar said:

The fact remains at present it is not mandatory and I have high doubts it will be. 

Sorry - not mandated for everyone.

But to maintain their green pass or whatever it is there - to participate in society.

[wendybr]

Just now, Stokz said:

How are they at risk if they’ve had the vaccine ? 

They are at risk of getting it - it has now been conceded, but they are almost being guaranteed a mild or moderate bout of the illness.

 

Except I think that in the UK, hospitalisations now are at almost 30% of vaccinated people.

[sonar]

1 minute ago, wendybr said:

Sorry - not mandated for everyone.

But to maintain their green pass or whatever it is there - to participate in society.

We're talking Aus here....not overseas. Vaccination isn't mandatory and I assume boosters won't be either.

[Stokz]

10 minutes ago, sonar said:

The fact remains at present it is not mandatory and I have high doubts it will be. 

This vax wasn’t going to be mandatory either, but here we are…. 

Vax passports were conspiracy theory talk last year but here we are.