Jump to content

Armageddon Thread


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, sonar said:

Why every year. ?  Shouldn't it stop you from getting the flu......ever again ?  Well, it doesn't because the flu virus mutates. Just as covid does. 

Yep.

I think the flu vaccine is effective for 3 months (is what I heard recently). Which is why they encourage people to wait until well into Autumn to get it...so the effect lasts over Winter.

PS I only get it because our principal arranges for all staff who want it, to get it at school.

I've never bothered to go to a doctor for it 

Link to post
1 hour ago, wendybr said:

"major right wing newspaper"??

That first item I linked was what Jess' article was based on (as stated at the end of her article) - so I linked the original article, and I merely pointed out that the original was published in April - so the stats it was claiming were some months out of date.

After that, I just googled "UK vaccine passport" - the ABC article came up first -  so I linked it.

I have no idea whether BJ (I don't disagree with anything you say there about him or his govt) could make that decision on his own??

I wouldn't have thought so - but all I know is that they aren't going ahead with it. Apparently.

Here, it will be challenged in the High Court. And a substantial number of Church leaders and parishioners have come out against it also. Not sure if that has been published here at all.

Also,  I don't know whether Gladys contradicted it, but Barillaro let slip somewhere (I think yesterday) that the unvaxxed/Untouchables would be in exile for 3 weeks or so. But I didn't follow up on that.

My gut feeling is that the threat of home detention (almost) for the unvaxxed is just a way of forcing many to relent, as quickly as possible.

But again, time will tell.

The Australian a major right wing newspaper 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, wendybr said:

I'm not sure I quoted from The Australian  did I?

I wouldn't usually have access to it.

@Stokz posted the tweet you then agreed with it. That's how we got onto Boris 

My point was your claims of the mainstream media not covering the anti-lockdown ant.vaccine.passport view is a load of Conspiracy theorist crap, The Australian article is an example of them doing it, 

 

 

 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Unlimited said:

Penrith LGA, part of an LNP electorate with the dickhead Stuart Ayres, has only certain suburbs in lockdown.

And what can one say about Stuart Ayres?

As NSW Sports Minister, bowed to the Parrot (Alan Jones the right-wing nut job) to stop the rebuild of Stadium Australia. Instead, NSW gets a rebuild of Sydney Football Stadium.

What a idiotic cluster f*** of a politician he is.

 

Link to post
9 hours ago, StringerBellend said:

@Stokz posted the tweet you then agreed with it. That's how we got onto Boris 

My point was your claims of the mainstream media not covering the anti-lockdown ant.vaccine.passport view is a load of Conspiracy theorist crap, The Australian article is an example of them doing it, 

 

 

 

The point is - once you hit your number for double vax - they (vax passports) really serve no purpose.

As you can see from the example above from the Israeli health minister.

Edited by Stokz
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Stokz said:

The point is - once you hit your number for double vax - they (vax passports) really serve no purpose.

As you can see from the example above from the Israeli health minister.

It's a reasonable point, surely it depends on what your number is though? (and to a degree the amount of virus out there) If your number is a low one (e.g. 80% of adults which is far lower overall) then you still have a significant amount of people, who aren't vaccinated, if your number is higher (I don't know 80-90% of over 12s) then yes the passport is of little value, as it is reasonable to assume that a person is fully vaccinated. 

 

Just clarifying "

My point was your claims of the mainstream media not covering the anti-lockdown ant.vaccine.passport view is a load of Conspiracy theorist crap, The Australian article is an example of them doing it,"

 

Was in reply to @Wendybr, in relation to my comment that the Australian is a major newspaper, the existence of this article (Campbell Newman's) one kind of proves that actually the mainstream media are covering it.

There was a misunderstanding that I was debating if the UK was or wasn't going with vaccine passports

Link to post
45 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

It's a reasonable point, surely it depends on what your number is though? (and to a degree the amount of virus out there) If your number is a low one (e.g. 80% of adults which is far lower overall) then you still have a significant amount of people, who aren't vaccinated, if your number is higher (I don't know 80-90% of over 12s) then yes the passport is of little value, as it is reasonable to assume that a person is fully vaccinated. 

 

I guess - not for us to make a call on what that number is.

If the experts says its 16+ at 80% - then just go with that. If its 12+ than so be it.

 

Link to post

Also with NSW and particularly Western Sydney over 80% first dose, surely some the current restrictions need to ease a BIT.

1st dose still gives 70% protection. That's not little.

Get rid of that stupid curfew and hour limits. 

Just focus on outdoor stuff, open the outdoor pools etc... but limit numbers, maybe extend the km's to 10. Only so many things people in Western syd can do within a 5km radius.

This is the 2nd school holidays in a row where the kids are still in lockdown. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stokz said:

This is 100% true.

 

 

Putting pressure on the unvaccinated to get the Jab to me is a reasonable enough reason to do it. An Epidemiologist would be (or should be) looking at that, if social queues encourage people to get vaccinated and therefore improve the overall health outcome then that to me is a reasonable public health justification.

For example, while masks have a direct prevention justification, they are also a strong visual cue that this **** is serious, and they result in people taking the other precautions more seriously.

 

Just as a total aside, what is with the use of quotes in that tweet,  "health", "Covid", "unvaccinated" why the need for a quote? Isn't the dude the Israeli Health Minister he's not the Israeli "Health" Minister. It's weird, quotes suggest that they aren't it's like saying Josh Sotirio is a professional "footballer", it suggests (and of course I would never do that) that Mr Sotirio isn't really a footballer he's an alleged "footballer"

Link to post
2 hours ago, Stokz said:

The point is - once you hit your number for double vax - they (vax passports) really serve no purpose.

As you can see from the example above from the Israeli health minister.

No, the point is something different: Auntie Gladys has just mentioned "protecting the health system from being overwhelmed" - which was the point for lockdowns all along. As long as vaccination is required to prevent these kind of scenarios, evidence of vaccination will be part of life.

The decision vax passports yay or nay will be made by human resources, airlines, international border control etc. Whatever is going to be adopted as best practice out there Australia will have to adopt as well.

On a side note: I personally have no issue with people exercising their freedoms and not get vaccinated - as long as they are staying away from me should they be infectious. If people think that consuming ivermectin, bleach, urine or diesel oil will protect them from getting or suffering from COVID - let them have it.

I wouldn't want to share the road the road with piss heads driving around, or truck drivers on ice, or sitting on the same train with someone suffering from TB. Why should I be subjected to anyone who might have COVID just because it suits them?

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Stokz said:

Also with NSW and particularly Western Sydney over 80% first dose, surely some the current restrictions need to ease a BIT.

1st dose still gives 70% protection. That's not little.

Get rid of that stupid curfew and hour limits. 

Just focus on outdoor stuff, open the outdoor pools etc... but limit numbers, maybe extend the km's to 10. Only so many things people in Western syd can do within a 5km radius.

This is the 2nd school holidays in a row where the kids are still in lockdown. 

It seems like a lot of the current restrictions have been put in place in a way that allows easier policing and enforcement, rather than what makes the most sense from a public health perspective. I get that they need to make the rules enforceable, however the main inputs should be reducing the risk of the virus while minimising the impact on society.

The data seems to show that the biggest risks are indoor workplaces and household transmission. Outdoor settings with social distancing and masks are very low risk. I don't see the benefit in limiting peoples time outside to an hour. I'd also like to see public pools reopen. They can control who's there with class bookings and check in systems, they're usually so chlorinated you're basically swimming in a pool of disinfectant, and in terms of weighing up the risks and benefits, there's been an increase in childhood drownings that are being attributed to the lack of swimming lessons. Even if they limited it to kids lessons to start with as that would have the biggest benefit. If that doesn't cause any major problems they can start to open them up to more people.

I'd also like to see household bubbles, similar to the singles bubble. That way you could have two households able to either visit each others homes or at a minimum be able to spend time together in public outside. You're adding the risk that one person with the virus would spread it through two households instead of one, however we're already accepting that risk with the singles bubble. That would have the benefit of extended families being able to see each other, or two families with kids who are friends being able to play together and socialise.

This would all be a lot harder to police, but as I said, ease of enforcement shouldn't be at the top of the list.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, pseudonym said:

E_SjiudUYAQGgyG?format=jpg&name=small

 

:unknw:

This. There is such risk of discrimination with these “areas of concern”. 
 

In my workplace they have current mandates for the vaccine if you live in an “area of concern” as opposed to no mandate if you Iive outside these areas. Irks me a bit despite the fact that I support the vaccine as the best way out of the pandemic. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, FCB said:

No, the point is something different: Auntie Gladys has just mentioned "protecting the health system from being overwhelmed" - which was the point for lockdowns all along. As long as vaccination is required to prevent these kind of scenarios, evidence of vaccination will be part of life.

 

I don't get this point - if we are at 80% double vaxxed, and the health system is still being overwhelmed? 

1. Are the vaccines working ?

2. Will pushing the vax rate to  90% make any difference ?

So your point regarding vax passports being used so that the health system doesn't get over run doesn't make sense.  Once you hit your threshold, at the double vaxxed % (whatever the number is) that means you can live with the virus, as such why do you need the vax passport.

Sure enough for international travel but domestically it just doesn't make sense.

Edited by Stokz
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Stokz said:

I don't get this point - if we are at 80% double vaxxed, and the health system is still being overwhelmed? 

1. Are the vaccines working ?

2. Will pushing the vax rate to  90% make any difference ?

So your point regarding vax passports being used so that the health system doesn't get over run doesn't make sense.  Once you hit your threshold, at the double vaxxed % (whatever the number is) that means you can live with the virus, as such why do you need the vax passport.

Sure enough for international travel but domestically it just doesn't make sense.

Stokz, of 20% of the population are not vaccinated, that is still 4.8 million people. There may well be a risk to the  health system in those numbers.

And to answer your question, yes 90+% would be better for reasons of health system and because it edges is closer to hers immunity which needs to be well into the 90’s. 
 

 Don’t like the vax passport but I can see why it may be required for a period of time. The article I posted about European countries is interesting because those countries are already dealing with these issues. We of course are still waiting to get enough vaccinated to do anything!! 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Stokz, of 20% of the population are not vaccinated, that is still 4.8 million people. There may well be a risk to the  health system in those numbers.

And to answer your question, yes 90+% would be better for reasons of health system and because it edges is closer to hers immunity which needs to be well into the 90’s. 
 

 Don’t like the vax passport but I can see why it may be required for a period of time. The article I posted about European countries is interesting because those countries are already dealing with these issues. We of course are still waiting to get enough vaccinated to do anything!! 

Oh my, my typing is atrocious. I meant herd immunity. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Cynth said:

Stokz, of 20% of the population are not vaccinated, that is still 4.8 million people. There may well be a risk to the  health system in those numbers.

And to answer your question, yes 90+% would be better for reasons of health system and because it edges is closer to hers immunity which needs to be well into the 90’s. 
 

 Don’t like the vax passport but I can see why it may be required for a period of time. The article I posted about European countries is interesting because those countries are already dealing with these issues. We of course are still waiting to get enough vaccinated to do anything!! 

4.8 million scattered all across Australia. 

How about we improve our health systems. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stokz said:

4.8 million scattered all across Australia. 

How about we improve our health systems. 

You wanna pay more taxes? We spend now around 15% GDP on healthcare as opposed to a lot less proportionally just 20 years ago. Besides, prevention is better than cure wouldn’t you say? 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Cynth said:

You wanna pay more taxes? We spend now around 15% GDP on healthcare as opposed to a lot less proportionally just 20 years ago. Besides, prevention is better than cure wouldn’t you say? 

The way some of you guys talk, would make me think we live in a 3rd world country with their medical systems.

So let me get this straight, 4.6million people scattered all over Australia, the 20% unvaxxed (of which probably a big number would be under 40, so their chances of Covid death are already very low) could cause serious issues to the health system, yet somehow Europe managed 10-30K cases a day with no vaccine. 

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...