Among other requirements being dropped.
Apparently we are now in a different "phase" of the response.
COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Entering USA Dropped from 11th May 2023
mrdean on 02/05/2023 - 11:20
Last edited 02/05/2023 - 11:35 by 1 other user
Last edited 02/05/2023 - 11:35 by 1 other user
Comments
- 1
- 2
Truly an unpopular opinion. you also use essential oils?
It's just a reflection of those who frequent this website which is also evident in many other posts. It's a reflection on the education system and wider society as a whole.
Cookers gunna cook
Vaccines were VERY succesful and EFFECTIVE in transferring a HUGE amount of money from governments (= taxpayers = lower and middle class) to the VERY RICH elites controlling the world and the plebs.
They were also very successful in preventing millions of deaths, but hey let's not let that get in the way of wearing our tinfoil hat and being a lunatic
VERY RICH elites controlling the world and the plebs.
I don't think I've ever met someone who uses the word "pleb" un-ironically that doesn't have a few screws loose.
@coffeeinmyveins: Are you a media consultant conspiracy theories fighter paid by the goverment or by WEF?
You are going to be very busy now that all the so called conspiracy theories are coming true.
Keep reciting the narrative… it is getting old and stail now though
Just here for SlavOz presence.
Good to know. I wonder what about Singapore?
Good to know.
why?
Coz keeping yourself up to date with global news is always good to know. Right? :-)
Additionally, HHS and DHS announced today that they will start the process to end their vaccination requirements for … certain noncitizens at the land border. In the coming days, further details related to ending these requirements will be provided.
Probably best to wait for the full details, not that it will have much impact on the vast majority of people here.
That part is referring to a bit of law known as Title 42, which has been used to expel those at the Mexican border rather than allowing them to seek asylum, under the guise that it's a health risk as part of the pandemic. It's a much more complicated mess than foreign visitors flying in.
Djokovic can finally play again!
Noobdy cares
Did he stop playing?
Please make him retire from all kinds of sports
Frankly given the cost of American health care I would do what I could to avoid it. Will, also, be interested to see what travel insurance terms and conditions say.
Good news for cookers.
Good news for the American economy as they need more tourists.
Excellent news!
Injecting whatever into your body is a personal choice. Scared of catching something - then go get jabbed and be protected. #simple
The exact selfish me-ism that killed hundreds of elderly Australians.
Progressives ….. whaddaya gonna do?
Nothing, this is where nature kicks in .What's left of it. The not so cute & cuddly part.
You can't vaccinate for self inflicted social media brain malaise, so it will run it's course.
Conscription might be a bonus to look fwd too. (ooh! lots of vaccines too)You can't vaccinate for self inflicted social media brain malaise, so it will run it's course.
The irony
Live?
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-death-rates…
Pretty awkward.
If you don't believe the source you can verify the data from Texas / Florida government sources. Hardly the most progressive…
@[Deactivated]: Well vaccines aren't a progressive / conservative issue in the rest of the world. You're no more likely to be vaccinated if 'progressive' in Australia. You're just more likely to be vaccinated if well educated. It only because a progressive vs conservative issue in the US because some idiots thought politicizing reality would win them votes. Turns out, killing off those who vote for you, not so popular.
Well vaccines aren't a progressive / conservative issue in the rest of the world.
^ This
Once upon a time, in this forum of/in Oz, there used to be a certain account user that liked to bandy something about 'progressives' alot ….. like Alot …. ALOT. We're in Australia not Kansas!
Also, jabbie chatter is so 2021
Did you think about all the vulnerable people you beat to the jab? Pretty selfish there too
Gymnastics in overdrive
That's ridiculous, the so called vaccines did not and do not prevent transmission.
The real selfishness is actually misleading and forcing people to take experimental therapies under false claims of safety and effectiveness.Except they did, no matter how you twist them not doing so 100% of the time. Absolutely proven to be thousands of time safer than driving but I’ll bet people conveniently ignore the safety of anything that doesn’t play on their fear of needles.
@JumperC: Even after the Pfizer rep said before the EU hearing that they did not know whether the vaccine stopped transmission? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnxlxzxoZx0
What about the fact that you can be quadruple "vaccinated" and still get COVID? And what about Pfizer trying to push annual vaccinations?I'm going to assume you also believe natural immunity is fake news, so keep getting those boosters, you'll be alright (or not).
@reactor-au: This is where people take a sentence and twist it to back up their prior opinion. It wasn’t tested to stop transmission, but it did show high 90% efficacy in stopping anyone from showing symptoms or testing positive for it in the trials. That’s effectively the same thing. Seatbelts don’t stop 100% of motor vehicle deaths either.
People have varying degrees of immune response, the vaccine isn’t the thing that stops the virus, your immune system is, the vaccine prepares it. Ultimately the virus has mutated to evade early vaccines but you’re still 20x less likely to die of Covid if vaccinated, even if you get sick still with a weaker immune system.
Natural immunity and vaccine immunity are the same thing, the difference is you’re thousand of times less likely to die getting vaccine immunity than natural immunity. Can’t get Covid again if you’re dead.
You seem to assume a lot of wrong things and like to fight straw men.
All these people terrified of needles trying to make up justifications for why they should avoid them.
@JumperC: Okay at least you agree that the "vaccine" does not stop transmission, that is why some of us say it is absurd to impose "vaccination" requirements
Okay at least you agree that the "vaccine" does not stop transmission, that is why some of us say it is absurd to impose "vaccination" requirements
I think you're completely misunderstanding what that means and putting words in my mouth. It doesn't completely stop transmission. This doesn't mean it doesn't greatly reduce it, initially against the early strains it DID stop transmission > 90% of the time. That adds up quickly, more than that, in the % that it didn't stop transmission, it MAY have stopped transmission, since it reduced symptom severity and it's the symptoms that aid in spreading it (eg coughing etc).
Your argument is like saying seatbetls don't stop 100% of motor vehicle deaths, therefor they're absurd to mandate. Only worse, in this case, the condition is transmittable. And the healthy people that least need the vaccine are the ones in which it's more likely to stop transmission from. Because it's your immune system that does the heavy lifting, the vaccine trains it. If you're vaccinated you have the virus for less time, less severely and you're less likely to die. As such, it WILL reduce transmission. Just because it isn't 100% is an absolutely idiotic argument against it.
@JumperC: Are you saying the "vaccine" stops transmission by stopping symptoms? So asymptomatic people can't spread the virus? Amazing.
Are you saying the "vaccine" stops transmission by stopping symptoms? So asymptomatic people can't spread the virus? Amazing.
Again you're fighting straw men. Putting words like "can't" in there that never existed in the original, because you have no counter for the reality, you have to fight a distorted reality.
The original trial showed it stopped > 90% of people from getting the original strain AT ALL. Symptoms or not. For those who are asymptomatic they are LESS LIKELY to spread the virus. LESS LIKELY does not mean the same as CAN'T. Seriously it's no wonder people have distorted views of complex scientific studies if they don't understand basic English. When they say they didn't test for transmission, they mean, from the small % of people that did get it in the trial period, they didn't deliberately expose other vaccinated people and unvaccinated people to those people. Not that it didn't reduce transmission at all. You obviously can't transmit it if you don't get it, so there's no need to test for that obviously. And from those without symptoms, there's no need to specifically test that since symptomatic increase in spread is already well documented for any respiratory virus.
Regardless of all the above IF you get the virus, you're 20x less likely to die if vaccinated. During the peak 'emergency' stage, people were dying in some places of OTHER treatable diseases because the hospital beds in emergency were all taken by Covid patients. Thus even reducing severity in one person saved OTHER people's lives.
There's no longer that sort of emergency, so you see things like this where countries are removing the requirements because while being unvaccinated still increases your chance of transmitting to someone else, it's not likely to overwhelm hospitals anymore due to the combination of vaccine and natural immunity in the general population.
@JumperC: You seem to be back peddling ever so slowly, so maybe you will eventually have a revelation.
@reactor-au: I don't know how you get that unless you're talking about someone completely imaginary.
You said.
That's ridiculous, the so called vaccines did not and do not prevent transmission.
And you're utterly utterly wrong. When shown to be wrong, you pretended that you said something else, and fought ghosts.
I said in my first response
Except they did, no matter how you twist them not doing so 100% of the time.
And I'm 100% correct on that and haven't back peddled an inch. Because it's just as true now as it's ever been.
@JumperC: If the "vaccine" prevented transmission then the pandemic would have ended in 2021.
The so called vaccines did not and do not prevent transmission.You said I was incorrectly yet in your very next response you said ". It wasn’t tested to stop transmission, but it did show high 90% efficacy in stopping anyone from showing symptoms or testing positive for it in the trials. That’s effectively the same thing."
And no, that is not effectively the same thing.
You keep moving the goal posts, every response it's a watered down "stops transmission". I can tell you are one of those crazy people that are so scared of COVID you tell yourself whatever makes you feel safe. You would probably vaccinate every healthy 6 month old to save a few granny's, that is what is really scary.If the "vaccine" prevented transmission then the pandemic would have ended in 2021.
The so called vaccines did not and do not prevent transmission.No, it would have ended in 2021 if 100% of people were vaccinated and it was 100% effective, something that's not the case. I'm not sure how you get that. It's like saying if condoms prevented STDs then STDs would have disappeared when they invented condoms. Insane.
You said I was incorrectly yet in your very next response you said ". It wasn’t tested to stop transmission, but it did show high 90% efficacy in stopping anyone from showing symptoms or testing positive for it in the trials. That’s effectively the same thing."
And?
Look at it this way. If you have a trial on condoms, and the trial tests people that wear them and says they don't get STDs 95% of the time when wearing a condom. That's NOT the same as testing if it prevents people who wear condoms can transmit STDs. But it's effectively the same thing. So when someone says 'we didn't test transmitting' they mean, they didn't measure it in that direction. But if you don't catch it, you can't transmit it. I know you have a habit of reading more than one sentence as 'whatever you want it to mean', but the difference is important and not the 'gotcha' you think it is.
You keep moving the goal posts, every response it's a watered down "stops transmission
You're the one moving the goal posts mate. My original post was quite clearly:
Except they did, no matter how you twist them not doing so 100% of the time.
If you have trouble understanding English that's not moving goal posts, that's me trying to force a pretty basic concept though a brick.
I can tell you are one of those crazy people that are so scared of COVID you tell yourself whatever makes you feel safe
Mate, you and needles.
You would probably vaccinate every healthy 6 month old to save a few granny's, that is what is really scary.
Vaccinations are only suggested for people 5 and up. But go on, fight that straw man you seem to consistently fight. You could just read what I wrote, look at the data, agree I'm correct. Or you can keep making up reasons why billions of people are doing things that don't make sense to your completely distorted and misinformed world view.
You don't need to be afraid of Covid at all to get vaccinated, you just need to know how to read the safety data. You need to be terrified of needles or utterly brainwashed not to.
I can tell you are one of those crazy people that are so scared of needles you tell yourself whatever makes you feel safe.
@JumperC: I'm so scared of needles I got the Pfizer jab in October 2021 (along with pericarditis after 5 days). And although that did stop me from drinking from the big pharma cup and getting anymore experimental shots that don't actually stop transmission and are not safe, I also got a HPV vaccine shot in February 2022 (a long with arthritis in my hands and a weird skin spot on my arm within 2 weeks).
Now don't forget to save granny, get that 5th booster.
@reactor-au: Given pericarditis is more common with Covid than the vaccine, and usually minor in the more relatively rare cases with the vaccine? Weird you got it right as Covid peaked.
The good thing is if you at all saw a doctor for any of those side effects, they'd be entered in DAEN and we'd know what the difference in incidence on those issues are in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. That's the point. We're not supposed to 'drink from the big pharma cup'. We're supposed to base our decisions on the data. The same data that picked up the 1 in a million TTS cases. That's what it's there for.
You're still alive and banging on, can't be that unsafe. You should see the safety data for driving. If you're worried about vaccines you should be absolutely terrified of getting in a car.
@JumperC: It wasn't from COVID, I got COVID about 6 months later and I was man down for a week, funny I actually don't recall any myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID though.
The data is incomplete and a lot of it is kept a big pharma secret.
The day I got the Pfizer shot my GP said there was a 5 in 100,000 chance of getting heart inflammation from the first shot and 8 in 100,000 from the second; this was Pfizers opinion based on the whole age range and both genders no more appropriate induvial risk data was given or available.Pfizer also said the vaccine stays in the injection site - false! It travels EVERYWHERE in the body, and there is no available data on how long it hangs around for (it varies from person to person), and there is no available data on how much spike protein the body will produce (also varies from person to person), meanwhile the actual virus will only produce spike protein until your body eliminates the virus. I think I'd rather go with the virus thanks.
You keep saying I'm scared of vaccines, I told you I've been vaccinated as recently as 3 months ago, I think you are the one that's locked themselves in their house too scared of cars and viruses and whatever else.
It wasn't from COVID, I got COVID about 6 months later and I was man down for a week, funny I actually don't recall any myocarditis or pericarditis from COVID though.
So, after the vaccination you had a lower reaction to Covid gotcha.
The data is incomplete and a lot of it is kept a big pharma secret.
The day I got the Pfizer shot my GP said there was a 5 in 100,000 chance of getting heart inflammation from the first shot and 8 in 100,000 from the second;Sounds like an amazing secret you were openly told by your GP. Did they also tell you that even before the vaccine the incidence of pericarditis is around 27.7 per 100,000 people annually? So more than 7000 people would have been expected to get it in 2021 anyway, and as evidenced, it's rarely severe?
and there is no available data on how long it hangs around for (it varies from person to person),
Sure, it varies by person to person, from hours to days. This is the vaccine that can't survive long out of the fridge, it doesn't last very long in the human body which is far more hostile. Everything varies from person to person, most people don't suffer more than a sore arm from the vaccine. Some do. Even more crazy, they can tell if a few more people get a side effect from a vaccine by looking at large data sets. But they can't actually tell you which of those individuals it was pure coincidence (it will be some) and which were definitively caused by the vaccine. The more common the effect generally, the less able you are to say it was vaccine induced.
Pfizer also said the vaccine stays in the injection site - false!
I think you're confused on how vaccines work. Most of it does stay in or very near the injection site. It's the source of the number one adverse reaction. A sore arm. I'm not sure whether such a claim was ever made, nor do I know why anyone thinks it's relevant. It's your immune system reacting to the vaccine that causes the effects, same as your immune system reacting to the virus can also cause damage. Your immune system isn't confined to the injection site.
and there is no available data on how much spike protein the body will produce (also varies from person to person), meanwhile the actual virus will only produce spike protein until your body eliminates the virus. I think I'd rather go with the virus thanks.
The vaccine will only produce the spike protein until your body eliminates the vaccine, the virus will do it until your body eliminates the virus. The virus is substantially harder to eliminate than the vaccine, because the vaccine is inherently unstable and will not reproduce itself. Where as the virus will grow exponentially. As well as the spike protein, it also has an actual live virus attached, where as the spike protein itself can't replicate, it's the unstable mRNA that causes your body to produce it. And there's several other non mRNA vaccines if you're fixated on that aspect, but they always seem to get conveniently ignored.
The plus is once you have been exposed to the virus (via vaccine or virus), your body will begin to eliminate it quicker the next time.
You keep saying I'm scared of vaccines, I told you I've been vaccinated as recently as 3 months ago, I think you are the one that's locked themselves in their house too scared of cars and viruses and whatever else.
You keep saying I'm scared of vaccines, I told you I've been vaccinated as recently as 3 months ago,
Right, but you also keep saying things like
I think I'd rather go with the virus thanks.
So…. One of these things is you telling me you're scared of vaccines, the other one is you telling me something I can't verify.
I think you are the one that's locked themselves in their house too scared of cars and viruses and whatever else.
You think a lot of things that aren't true. I drive, fully aware it's hundreds of thousands of times more dangerous than the Covid vaccine. And both safer than Covid, which itself killed a million people in the US over 2020/2021. Compare that to the vaccine in Australia which has killed, what 14? Are we up to 20 yet? And none of those mRNA vaccines. Nothing is without risk, it's about choosing sensible risks vs unnecessary ones. Even panadol has risks. It's no 'big pharma secret' that medication has risks. What seems to be something people are trying to hide is when those risks are infinitesimally small compared to the alternative, they'll keep talking about the small risk.
It's always the case that studies first exclude common risks, and as more and more people are added to the sample, we increasingly find rarer and rarer risks. But it doesn't take long to exclude everything more common than getting hit by a bus, so why spend so much effort worrying about things that are that rare?
If you have a bad reaction and your GP suggests a different strategy for you, that's absolutely fine. They know you best. But it's insane to pretend rare events are a good reason for anyone else to take a big risk over a small risk. There are people with latex allergies that can't use condoms, that doesn't mean they aren't highly effective at preventing STDs, it just means those individuals need a different option to the rest of us.
Worth noting you've got a nearly 50% chance of being a victim to the nocebo effect. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9670676/
The reporting rate of chest discomfort was 190% greater in the five weeks after the first media item (p < .001). The monthly reporting rates of the symptoms mentioned in the media were significantly greater after the news coverage (ps ≤ 0.001). There was no effect of media on the control side effect fever (p = .06). There was an effect of media on myocarditis, pericarditis and anxiety (ps < 0.001). Anxiety, male gender, and younger age were significantly associated with side effects.
Basically it's unsurprising someone who was clearly concerned before they went to the GP (most people didn't go through the whole discussion about pericarditis before vaccination with their GP) ended up with a condition that is almost twice as common in people that are aware of the potential to experience the side effect. Basically, you're capable of causing your own side effects. No suggesting that's what's happened, but the data suggests it's almost as likely as not.
Please show us some credible evidence to prove your BS theory.
Seriously after all we know now there are still people like you pushing vaccines! gtfo!After all 'WE' know?? Hahaha. Who's we?
Do tell.
Bring the peer reviews along that support your anti science push-back, old bean. Not the greasy conspiratorial effluent usually dished up.@Mad Max: Look at what happened overseas prior to the vaccine and now. Look at the statics on who is most likely to be seriously affected or die. The non vaccinated are still more highly represented as a percentage.
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-Cases…
I noticed you didn't pony up with any scientific basis for your stance. Why have you inoculated yourself against reality?
@try2bhelpful: try2bhelpful
https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Documents/Pubs…
The linking methods in the report you link have a few issues. One is that the WAIIS is a voluntary registry, similar I suppose to our Immunization Register. How up to date it is, or how accurately it captures a persons status, would be anyones guess. Anyone who didn't have a vaccine status in that voluntary registry was deemed unvaccinated for the purposes of the report. It is possible the unvaccinated numbers are reflecting vaccinated people.
The other concern is the exclusion of bivalent boosters, the report indicates this was done not to confuse the reporting with monovalent boosters & that when a sufficient number of the population gets the bivalent ones, it will be updated. In my opinion if the information was available it should of been included. This exclusion may also have helped the numbers appear better than they may be in reality.
@mrdean: Why would the registers not be accurate? The vaccine is, ultimately, delivered by the Government. If someone is not listed as vaccinated it is highly likely they are unvaccinated. If anything we had the issue the other way where unvaccinated people were pretending to be vaccinated by getting a falsified certificate or someone else to get the vaccination for them. If a hospital asked for someone’s vaccination status the unvaccinated would more likely say they are to avoid being judged by medical staff.
The data for the bivalent boosters will be included as they are collated and double checked. These things do take time to be included in studies. For a start we have to see sufficient people getting sick after a large enough cohort of the bivalent shots have occurred. Also the bivalent shots are, currently, generally boosters, so the immune system in the body will not just be dependent on these. To get the real effect you would need people who have only ever had the bivalent shots.
This is one study I found easily. There are many, many others that come to the same conclusion. I chose this one because it is associated with a medical hospital and it is relatively recent. Do you really doubt these accuracy of the results of all these studies? Do you doubt the statistics of pre and post vaccination?
Frankly right now I’m much more concerned about the effects of Long Covid than of the vaccines. There are people with some debilitating long term issues. Anything that reduces your chance of getting severe symptoms when you get infected should be taken seriously. They are only beginning to understand the extent of the damage the disease can leave behind.
@try2bhelpful: try2bhelpful
Why would the registers not be accurate?
How many voluntary registers do you think would contain all information pertaining to immunizations? How many people got the shots at walk in, pop up clinics or something similar & then remembered to make sure the WAIIS was updated? How many even were aware of it? How many people are even aware of our AIR or DAEN?
All I've ever been after is 1) accurate data in & 2) unbiased reporting analyses.
Unfortunately, as I & many others have discovered over many years (not just the last 3), this just hasn't been happening.
There have been teams of experienced people going through the Pfizer documents as they become available through a court order, & the data there does not paint a "safe & effective" picture. Maybe you should research it a little bit, & compare it to the officially approved data, & then come to a conclusion. That's what most of us so called "cookers" did.
How does one tell if "long covid" was from the so called infection, or a result of the shots? I've read numerous submissions to the parliamentary inquiry of so called "long covid" & it is absolutely astonishing the number of individuals who do not in any way associate the onset of their symptoms with their jabs. Such is the power of the official narrative.
@mrdean: The Government will pay for shots based on how many people receive them. Again, if a small vaccination centre wants to be paid they might over state rather than understate. There will be issues with vaccination, nobody said they would be 100% safe. The point is the disease is much worse than the vaccination. The vaccination reduces the severity including death.
Long Covid is when people have had the disease not the injection. My suggestion is, actually, look at the science with unprejudiced eyes.
@mrdean: If you don’t report a suspected vaccine injury to DAEN as a practitioner you’re risking de registration, as such it’s massively inflated. And it doesn’t record injuries at all, to get injuries they have to compare to the regular occurrence of such conditions without the vaccine. That’s how they picked up the small handful of serious issues. They, unlike the majority of reported issues, were actually unusual.
All these people who like to quote DAEN or VAERS don’t have the slightest clue how they work and usually get their numbers from sites that republish their info without including the explanation, to push an agenda.
@mrdean: Yep, you have no idea how DEAN works if you knew how it worked you'd be pro Covid vaccination. It's accurate enough it managed to pick up the one in a million instance of TTS on the AZ vaccine after just a handful of cases. The problem is people have no idea how to read the data, so they find things that normally happen in unvaccinated people at a similar or even higher rate, and get terrified because those things 'still happen' in those vaccinated.
It's not a magic shield, people still suffer from the other things they did before the vaccine, but unless it cures everything people seem to think there's something being hidden just because those same things are still recorded.
Given the vaccine is essentially 'part' of the Covid virus, it's amazing how many people think somehow it's more dangerous than the virus. Especially when we have global scale comparisons between the unvaccinated and vaccinated to prove that's very much untrue.
@try2bhelpful: If long covid was not a massive burden on the health system and the broader community, I think that if it's greatest impact was on those who deliberately derail the validity of community immunisation efforts, (antvax cohort) or those who fake docs, deserve a taste of it.
In fact let them sign a legally binding disclaimer, staing that if they want to be anti-vaxxers, the health system puts them on the bottom of the treatment list. Call it rolling the dice and standing proudly by their decision, rather than the current bob each way situation we now have.
One is that the WAIIS is a voluntary registry, similar I suppose to our Immunization Register
The Immunization Register in Australia is absolutely not voluntary, it's a requirement to receive a vaccination in Australia. Just try and know a little what you're talking about. The 'voluntary' basis in WA (Washington) is based on heathcare provider, not individual, so it's unlikely to affect data on a macro level because the opting in and out is done at such a high level. Still there's no shortage of data sources that all concur, so don't like that one, there are plenty of other ones.
US data is a bit of a mess due to varying systems between states.
Even if it was a voluntary system, it would still be quite useful, if it under-reported those vaccinated it would be under-stating the effectiveness of vaccines and over-stating the side effects.
The other concern is the exclusion of bivalent boosters, the report indicates this was done not to confuse the reporting with monovalent boosters & that when a sufficient number of the population gets the bivalent ones, it will be updated. In my opinion if the information was available it should of been included. This exclusion may also have helped the numbers appear better than they may be in reality.
So few people have had the bivalent boosters that it's unlikely to affect the data meaningfully. But excluding them would make the vaccine seem worse since they're more effective against the strains around now. No one is deciding to exclude such things to make vaccines 'look better', they're deciding based on how useful the data is.
But ouch.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-va…
@Mad Max: Are you a bot fly?
What I love about cookers is how smart and brave they all are now. I'd like a public register of these deeply committed cookers, so employers can choose which zombies they choose to ditch. There's a difference between herd mentality and team player when it comes to community risk.@Protractor: You clearly subscribe to herd mentality. And you keep pushing it constantly every day at every time of the day. It sure looks like it is your job to push it and follow the script.
I think we need a register of media consultants paid by the goverment or WEF to influence social media platforms like ozbargain.
There seems to be a few of you always commenting and trying to ridiculise, put down and vilify anything said by anyone agaist the goverment narrative.
As for me I have a real job so, end of transmission.@Mad Max: Maybe I should join the cooking classes?
So classyhttps://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/celebri…
I'm flattered that you are so conspiratorially deluded that you think I am some sort of operative.
Just because you believe in the unbelievable.
LOL.@Protractor: The fact that you are flattered of being "some sort of operative" tells a lot about you.
Most would think they are scum. Selling their soul for a few pieces of silver. Worst than prostitutes.@Mad Max: I realise it is hard for people who have disappeared down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole to make their way back but the people you are listening to don’t have your best interests at heart.
Step back and think clearly. Read what you are writing and tell me this sounds rational and sane. When did you start using language like this? Why do you think like this? You should look up Jonestown; this is where the expression “drinking your own Kool Aid” comes from. Look at the cult that committed suicide because their leader told them a spaceship was coming to get them. The people on the farm who killed the cops. Get off the rightwing websites and think what makes more sense.
Do some Googling on the history of vaccination, quarantine, diseases through history. What we are seeing with Covid is a phenomena the scientists were long expecting. An infected person in one country can be the other side of the world in 24 hours. A new disease won’t be identified immediately. Then add in the “head in the sand” of various governments who think they can “ride it out” until they can’t. mRNA technology was being developed for 40 years. They got close to a released vaccine with SARS and MERS but the diseases died off before the clinical tests were finalised. A lot of the work to develop the Covid vaccine was already there. Nature provided the compelling reason to finish it.
Do you really think that all the Governments in the world got together to form some giant conspiracy? That they convinced thousands of scientists to lie about their research? That is just bonkers. Even when they were working on the vaccine they were barely talking to each other. You give these guys too much credit if you think they could pull of a hoax that big.
I’m not an “agent” of a drug company. I’m just someone who won’t let themselves be manipulated by people who peddle ignorance for their own gain. My first degree was Chemistry/Chemical engineering science with a second year microbiology subject. I worked at State rivers and water supplies with a bunch of microbiologists. I’m not an expert but I know what to look for when identifying someone one who is.
@Mad Max: Ya mean two people who are trying to help others to think rationally. We represent the vast majority of people in this country. To think we are working in tandem sounds a bit like paranoia.
@try2bhelpful: It is so nice of you to help me and everyone else to think rationally. You must be such a selfless and altruistic person as you are always here spending really a lot of your time every day to educate irrational people.
As for me, no paranoia at all. I just look at all the facts and information available and when things don't look or sound right I don't believe them. No matter who says what. The facts I can see with my own eyes.
I am glad you are happily vaccinated and I wish you plenty more boosters to stay healthy so you can keep helping misguided people.
One more thing. You mentionedI’m just someone who won’t let themselves be manipulated by people who peddle ignorance for their own gain
What gain would that be? Because I can only see the multibillion dollars gains made by the pharmaceutical companies and their associates. I can't see any gains made by those raising concerns regardind novel experimental vaccines that have not been really tested as normally done with other vaccines, even though they have been pushed on everyone as one size fits all.
And I can also see their eagerness of pharmaceutical companies to be guaranteed indemnity against any liability and their determination to keep all relevant reports, studies and results hidden for 75 years. What did they need indemnity for and why the need to hide documents? For a vaccine that is "safe and effective" as claimed there would be no such need. They should be basking in their own glory for saving the human kind instead, proud of their great vaccine. Why demanding indemnity. Why hiding information?You say
We represent the vast majority of people in this country
Good for you, but "What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.
This would be it from me. I really have no need or interest to convince anyone so each to his own.
@Mad Max: There is a lot of money made in the rightwing disinformation sphere and you don’t even need to go to the effort of scientific studies that require hundreds of hours of research and peer reviewing. You don’t require the hours in the lab. You don’t even have to understand the enormous amount of data that shows the validity of scientific and medical research. You can just lie to people and tell them they can do their own research. So exactly what testing have you undertaken with your “research”. How many Covid cases have you treated, how much lab time have you put in? Personally I will go with the experts on this because this isn’t my area of expertise. Rather than some random internet person who think they know better.
Honestly mate. At least your influence is minor.
. I just look at all the facts and information available and when things don't look or sound right I don't believe them.
Would you trust a plumber to look at "the facts" and give you a diagnosis or opinion on your illness (not covid related) or tax?
@Ughhh: I am not a plumber. However I strongly recommend you go for a vaccine top up (4th or 5th booster?) if it is 6 months from your last booster. Apparently there is no need for any relevant qualification to push vaccines.
Hopefully all the undisclosed compound side effects and vaccine injuries will get rid of some relentless and blinkered vaccine pusher.
@Mad Max: I'll take your 'word' for it. {Or not.}
But I said I'm flattered that YOU are deluded enough to think of ME as an operative. Get it?
Stay away from schools
Pretty weird that this is still a requirement anyway.
Why would you want to go to that third world shithole anyway?
It's just below Bali on my non-bucket list
How can anyone still doubt the efficacy of the vaccine? It may not reduce your chances of getting the infection, by a great deal, but it certainly helps with reducing the severity of your symptoms. I find the anti vaccine mob baffling. If they aren't interested in Science and statistics what are they interested in? Why do they think some nutjob who has found a way to monetise ignorance has a better handle than thousands of respected scientists around the world?
They seem to be the same conspiracy nut jobs against 5G, think the 15 minute village is designed to "trap them" in their areas and think Fox News is a reliable source of news. Funnily enough even Foxtel is saying that things like "Outsiders" shouldn't be considered as providing accurate news. Watching the Fox family turning themselves in knots trying to defend the defamation suits has been hilarious. Hoisted by their own internal emails. They know they are peddling garbage but they will lose viewer share if they tell the truth. All captured in their own words.
I've watched enough of these things to know that the current wave may not be the last. I intend to have as much protection as possible in case we get hit with something worse.
The latest Pox News backdown was a ripper. Pulling out cos "did not want to enlarge the litigants popularity". LOL.
So much money, so many lawyers, so much power, and they scarpered.Meh.
That's so funny. The best is yet to come. Loving it.
Uncle Rupert better stay alive long enough to feel the big burn.As for antivax nutjobs,cookes gunna cook. (Wait till the govt rolls out 666G)
Covid strains might incentivise a few to vaccinate. The rest have to roll the dice. As long as we have clear delineations to protect the rest of us.The stuff that is coming out with Fox is unbelievable. How deluded are these Fox people putting this stuff into emails? No wonder they got rid of Carlson. I thought it was just his hypocrisy but he actually was, very, white supremicist. Putting him on the witness stand would’ve been a hoot. I bet the other lawsuits will be settled now as well. Fox, really, can’t afford for any of their people to be cross examined.
My only concern with people who don’t want to be vaccinated is they avoid passing the disease to vulnerable people and they don’t clog up the hospitals. If they stay at home and either get better, or die, then fair enough.
The nature of diseases is they can wax and wane. If the disease finds a bunch of amenable hosts it takes off, if it can’t find suitable hosts it dies off. The Black Death managed this for centuries. Quarantine was the best option until modern treatments. If people want to see how effective vaccines are look at what children were dying off before the vaccines came in. Look at the death toll of measles outbreaks when conspiracy theories take hold and people don’t vaccinate their kids. With a bit of Googling it is all there.
I worked for State Rivers and Water Supply for a while. I’ve probably had more shots than most people here. The vaccines were needed to avoid water borne diseases. Given how nasty some of those diseases can be so I decided to stick with the science.
Conspiracy theories used to be fun. It was all X-files, Lone Gunmen stuff. Now it just seems to be someone has found a way to monetise bigotry and ignorance. This comes with a side order of inoculating people against science and facts. I have no idea how we can reach some people now. They’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole even a ferret can’t get them back.
How can anyone still doubt the efficacy of the vaccine?
Tell me the exact percentage variance on outcomes between treatment with any of the mRNA covid shots and a course of ivermectin?
The well has been poisoned by political and special interests. Anyone with half a brain should be sceptical here. That doesn't mean don't take the treatment, it means make damn sure that you're willing to accept the consequences of your choices.
For me it was simple on both the medical and ideological front:
Medically these treatments are virtually untested, as evidenced by their emergency medical authorisation use. 'Safe' medications can easily take a decade to make it through all the hoops of a TGA approval.
Ideologically it was a case of me saying that I have an inviolate right to medical autonomy, and the harder people tried to violate that right the more I dug my heels in.
I have zero interest in interfering in other's choices, and I have no interest in debating my own. Do your own research, make up your own mind, and mind your business and I'll do the same.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/mis…
Studies show the ivermectin doesn’t work any better than a placebo. In fact to be the least bit effective it would have to be delivered at toxic doses. If you do some Googling you can find many studies that show this. It is used for treating intestinal worms and to topical infections.
The mRNA vaccines have been administered to millions around the world and the before and after statistics on percentage deaths pre/post vaccine are pretty evident.
In all honesty I’m not sure what you expect your own “research” to uncover. The science is pretty obvious. The difference is I go to respected institutions for my information and you go to some random on the internet who agrees with your prejudices. I have no doubt you don’t want to debate this. However, may I make a suggestion you have a look at Dr Strangelove. I think that POE might ring a bell.
As I said: I have no interest in pushing my views on anyone else.
I'm not going to deride you for not coming to the same conclusions as me. You probably believe a lot of things I don't. I respect your right to disagree and I respect your right to choose what you do with your body.
I will however state that I believe you didn't read a single one of the cited papers. If you did you'd have spotted this in the very first paper:
Conclusion: Our study supports the benefits of utilization of combination of Doxycycline and
Ivermectin in mild to moderate COVID-19 infection in terms of early recovery based on the time for
symptom resolution and the mean duration of hospital stay.Those clinicians obviously didn't use a fatal dose of ivermectin. They used 200μgm per kg for 7 days and saw results. So if you're wrong about your very first claim then what else are you wrong about?
Now, because science (notably statistics) is hard and most certainly not a matter of faith, I'm going to tell you why that paper's conclusion is suspect. That study used a grand total of 100 people, 50 of which received treatment, and 40 of whom got positive effect. That sample size is nothing and certainly insufficient to base any conclusion on without further work being put in.
A scientific mind reads the above and concludes we don't know. That's the fundamental difference between science and faith: science doesn't fear uncertainty and sees it as a signal for further inquiry, and faith hates uncertainty and will attempt to quash all questioning lest doubt take hold. Faith is always going to be easier and more comforting than having to sit down and read 38 papers, figure out who wrote them and if they're biased or flawed, and do so in the full knowledge that you can easily walk away to no conclusive outcome even when everything is kosher, simply because reality doesn't care about certainty or neat outcomes.
You want there to be perfect answers and that's just being human. Unfortunately, it's not being scientific. The reality is that we don't have the answers to many questions here, and even in the absence of the poisoning of the well it would take decades to fully understand the implications of everything that occurred and the outcomes of the decisions made in response. Turns out that if time isn't going fast enough you can't just get out and push so you can magically have ten years of efficacy and safety data on a new treatment. Science is slow and people love to pretend otherwise. Everything is fine, now just swallow this thalidomide …
Still, to return to the root of my motivations: if things are safe and effective then they don't require emergency authorisation, and the more snotty and condescending people get about my non-compliance the more non-compliant I will become. I won't ignore my lying eyes and I won't cede to bullying. Neither is in my interests.
@cfuse: You seem to need a lot of words to say you refuse to follow the science from thousands of experts around the world. The emergency approval was required because tens of thousands of people were dying, per day. To have insisted on the months required to follow standard procedure would’ve resulted in millions dead. Since then hundreds of millions, even billions, of people have been vaccinated.
I’m not going to try to convince you, I will just put up the facts and tell you to read widely. Every Pandemic throws up “contrary” ideas. With the Black Plague it included travelling to Canterbury Cathedral to get a relic to protect themselves. Thereby spreading the plague even further. It is only with distance we see hindsight.
Nobody is saying that the vaccines are 100% safe or effective, but that is true of almost anything. It is about best bang for buck in the situation you find yourself.
@try2bhelpful: No small irony in deriding faith of the past and then demonstrating an utter refusal to question one's own in the present.
Science is not a religion but if it were its most sacred doctrine would be to question everything. Anyone that claims the science is settled (via arguments to authority and majority, no less) is little more than a charlatan selling 'relics' at Canterbury Chapel.
Covid's mortality figures are sub 1% in total, and mostly distributed amongst the elderly and ill. Lying about that doesn't help anyone. Again, if your foundational claim is false then all subsequent claims and conclusions founded on it may be dismissed without further consideration.
As for best bang for buck, that was simply doing nothing for the vast majority of people. We have little evidence that any of the mRNA treatments have modulated either severity of infection or reduction of transmission. As far as medicine goes those treatments would have never received authorisation under anything but emergency use whether or not they're safe because they don't work (which is why Vaxzevria has lost approval in Australia due to unacceptable risks of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome).
As I said: I did my prudence, made my choices, and I live with the consequences like everyone else does. That's all I expect here for me, and hope for in others.
@cfuse: I'm reasonably sure science has become a religion. Go against the dogma & one will face the inquisition & its consequences.
@mrdean: We are lucky these days.
In the 1600 people going against the religion and the dogma were burnt at the stake.
These days they only lose their jobs and may be stopped from going to the pub.@Mad Max: Maybe.
Think about the long term consequences to a society in which professionals are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs, or losing acceptance by peers, or for losing grants & funding in order to do science. What it means is the co-opting of science for commercial & vested interests. Rule by corporations that gain immense wealth & are able to influence both government policy & education systems.
The poisoning of humanity & natural ecosystems.
@mrdean: You have described exactly the current situation.
My comment was a sarcastic observation that some powerful organisation are able to manipulate and direct public opinion to suit their agenda. Just like the church and the Holy Inquisition in the 1600.@Mad Max: It may be the same organisations & the descendants of the people involved are the same ones in modern times. They've just changed costumes, gone from "religion" to "science".
What it means is the co-opting of science for commercial & vested interests
Think about the consequences to society where those who have their own commercial and vested interests have convinced you that they're afraid to speak up (while speaking up) and promoting their podcast / book / alternative treatment they've patented. And you don't bother to show them the same skepticism you believe should exist. When mountains of science and independently verifiable data are discarded in favour of those who seek to individually promote themselves and their provably false 'science'.
You win an Nobel prize for speaking up against the majority and proving it. Meanwhile lets not fetishize individuals that have absolutely no factual basis for their 'speaking up' beyond their personal profile being lifted.
There's plenty of quite legitimate critiques against corporations influencing government policy, but this ain't it chap. Thousands of indepenedent governments many of whom are ideologically opposed don't simultaneously do double blind studies that prove the one thing only to be debugged by Dr. Fameseeker who thinks they've seen a pattern in their six patients.
Recommendation
The Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 ().(profanity) you have to go a long way into the weeds to ignore the recommendation and pick a paper to support what you think in a sea of papers that don't (I couldn't even find your quoted study? fiction?). Pretty text book cherry picking. They've found the papers that supported ivermectin initially were not scientifically conducted and often pushed by people who patented Ivermectin based treatments.
These are all the individual studies cited, one quote per study.
In patients with mild COVID-19, IVM 300 μg/kg per day for 5 days did not improve the time to resolution of symptoms.
Among patients who had recently acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no evidence that IVM provided any clinical benefit.
IVM did not prevent the composite endpoint of hypoxemia, ED visit, hospitalization, or death.
In outpatients with recent COVID-19 infection, IVM did not reduce the need for emergency setting visits or hospitalization when compared with placebo.
Among outpatients with COVID-19, IVM did not shorten time to sustained recovery or reduce incidence of hospitalization or death.
Compared to CQ or HCQ, IVM did not reduce the proportion of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 who died or who required supplemental oxygen, ICU admission, or MV.
For patients who received IVM and those who received placebo, there was no difference in the proportion of negative RT-PCR results at Day 5 or clinical outcomes.
IVM provided no significant virologic or clinical benefit for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
Use of IVM, when compared with the SOC, did not result in differences in all-cause mortality, hospital LOS, or the need for MV.
A high dose of IVM (1,200 μg/kg) appears to be safe but not well tolerated; 34% discontinued therapy due to AEs.
There was no significant difference in reduction of VL between IVM and placebo arms.Ouch, even a high does didn't make a difference, but caused severe side effects.
In patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, there was no evidence that IVM provided any clinical benefit, including no evidence that IVM reduced progression to severe disease.
Study after study has shown IVM has no or negative effects on people taking it for Covid.
We do know. We know really well. A few early studies pushed by people that sought to profit from IVM doesn't overrule the later, larger independent double blind studies that proved unequivocally that it didn't work. We've replaced the 'we don't know because it's small and unscientific' studies with large scientific studies. All evidence isn't equal. The inaccurate study is obliterated by the hundreds of accurate ones. It's utterly pointless to cite except if ignoring science and 'researching' by ignoring reality to find anything that could possibly say what you want it to. The definition of being unscientific.
That's the fundamental difference between science and faith
Science proves IVM doesn't work, a scientific mind bows to the overwhelming weight of evidence, realizes the difference between a well conducted study and one that's unreliable. Faith means finding a poorly conducted study to back up your belief it might.
Faith is finding a the one in several million people that have a fatal reaction to a vaccine and ignoring the hundreds per million that a proven to be saved by vaccination.
Ultimately people pretending we don't know that vaccines work and are exceptionally safe and that other treatments work when they've been disproven cost lives.
There are other treatments that do work, eg Paxlovid, but that interacts with other medications and so many people can't take it.
You probably believe a lot of things I don't
This isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of reality vs your belief.
@JumperC: I'm willing to go out on a limb and support he adoption of double dosing all willing anti covid vaxxers with IVM.
They know best@Protractor: You know that you couldn't get anything but an mRNA vaccine, right? For political reasons, right? Both during and after covid, for a whole bunch of treatments, right?
I actively sought out a conventional antigen vaccine during covid but I couldn't get one because of political campaigning in the US and worldwide. Go to your doctor and try and get your hands on an antigen vaccine for covid today and see how easy that is. They exist, they work, and you aren't allowed to have them (for reasons that I'm sure have absolutely nothing to do with politics and profits).
Useful idiots are always the first to cheer for individual rights being compromised and the last to realise they're cheering for what's going to be done to them down the track. I support your right to have as many shots as you like. I don't support either of us having no right to decline them. Now you tell me why that's wrong?
@cfuse: You do you. Which part of mid pandemic, limiting billions of avoidable deaths upsets you, that people responsible acted as they should? part from Berejiklian in Australia's case and all the moronic Ivomectin c/s politicians .
I just wish all the born again white knights were brave enough to commit to a public register so communities,neighbours and employers can decide for themselves who they respect,associate with or employ.
Did you actively seek out what was superior in your eyes , in the knowledge that every one else was in a different boat, ergo, you're special?Welcome to human beings . Politics and profits will win every time.Clearly we need more humans,innit?
You do you.
That's all I ever wanted.
limiting billions of avoidable deaths upsets you
There were plenty of countries that couldn't afford the medications (or in the case of some, rejected them). The cohort in question is easily greater than a billion people. Why aren't they all dead right now?
Covid's overall mortality figures are lucky to hit 1% on a good day, and only after you factor in the cohorts that are on the verge of death anyway (the old and the sick).
You are well aware that your claim is a lie. The obvious question is why are you trying to pass that off as the truth?
I just wish all the born again white knights were brave enough to commit to a public register so communities,neighbours and employers can decide for themselves who they respect,associate with or employ.
People with principles, whatever they may be and whether you agree with them or not, will always out themselves. There's no doubt here as to your beliefs nor mine because we both have said as much in this forum. Believe me, my life would be a lot smoother if I was prepared to deceive people for my own immediate gain. It's that sinking feeling again when you know you're going to have to be the one to do the right thing, for no gain, because you'd hate yourself if you didn't.
There is already multiple registers that do exactly what you want. The vaccines are serial numbered and tracked down to the patient because they're a rationed medical treatment. Further compliance testing is part of the Service NSW app where you can voluntarily register your vaccination credentials and your day to day whereabouts. So we automatically know who the dissidents, the compliant, and the true believers are in this situation. Throw in some basic social network analysis (because as you quite rightly surmise, who you voluntarily associate with says a lot about your beliefs) and you've got a bead on the entire population.
Did you actively seek out what was superior in your eyes , in the knowledge that every one else was in a different boat, ergo, you're special?
I couldn't give a damn about being exceptional or not, because in case you haven't figured it out peer esteem isn't a particularly motivating factor in my life.
@cfuse: "Why aren't they all dead right now?"
I'm sure those who are, those who suffered enormously because of that,those with permanent disabilities because of covid or long covid applaud your valour.
But I'm pretty sure where no vaccine regime existed at all, (kind of ,where is that?) they envy our outcomes.
You know that you couldn't get anything but an mRNA vaccine, right? For political reasons, right? Both during and after covid, for a whole bunch of treatments, right?
False.
I don't support either of us having no right to decline them
No one has ever not had the right to decline them.
You know that you couldn't get anything but an mRNA vaccine, right?
This is some spectacular revisionist history.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was available as late as March 2023 and it was the first vaccine available to most people three weeks later. Only the most vulnerable were able to get a vaccine before this. The AstraZeneca vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine. You can still book Novavax vaccines for people 12+ again also not an mRNA vaccine.
Politics don't care about keeping vaccines from people, they should care about getting the most effective and best value. Profits are absolutely why we don't have some less effective vaccines like the AstraZeneca vaccine anymore. Anyone looking at the data would get the more effective vaccines, it's not profitable to keep a less effective vaccine around for a handful of irrational people.
False.
There is a grand total of one antigen vaccine approved for use in Australia. It was provisionally approved on 20 January 2022 as a primary course, and as a booster on 9 June 2022.
https://www.tga.gov.au/products/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines/i…
https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/our-vac…Unsurprisingly, approval isn't a synonym for available for wide clinical use. A vaccine that wasn't available to me during the pandemic is useless, getting it now that covid is endemic is also useless.
No one has ever not had the right to decline them.
Would you like to keep your job? Leave your house? Travel between states or overseas? Shop for food? Walk around without showing your papers? It's your choice, right? At least you didn't have to put up with being harassed by the VIC cops for daring to be a pregnant woman and using a public bench. It was her choice to dare to be in public. I'd ask if you have any shame over presenting apologia for that kind of thing, but why go fishing for disappointment?
You don't lose your rights overnight, you lose them bit by bit as useful idiots fritter them away on an altar of self righteous narcissism. They don't give a damn what happens to anyone they don't care about, because they can never put two and two together and figure out that the vulnerable or despised are the attack surface for eroding rights.
Of course they're not going to come for the obedient dog on day one. They will come for you eventually, like they always have, all over the world, throughout history. Governments always do that, sooner or later. That's assuming you haven't joined them, put on your jackboots, and are out patrolling for pregnant women to threaten.
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine.
Oh hooray, a genetically modified adenovirus that does exactly the same thing that the mRNA vaccines do, just with the older tech. Why wouldn't I want the Pepsi to mRNA's Coke?
I don't want random tissues in my body making spike proteins. I have enough of a problem with that from actual covid infections, thank you very much. You can offer me some dead virus to gee up my immune system or nothing. I decline genetic treatments until sufficient time (for me, not alpha testers like yourself) has passed to prove them safe and effective (and necessary. I avoid all medications I don't need).
Politics don't care about keeping vaccines from people, they should care about getting the most effective and best value.
Our entire pharmaceutical industry and the government's pharmaceutical benefits scheme is built on the principle of unique patentable characteristics to determine the right to exclusive sale, and by extension the ability to set pricing and profits. You don't make serious money on anything other than a medication you have the rights for. There are a mountain of GRAS substances that are not for sale domestically because they're off patent and nobody wants to bear the TGA approval costs.
Moderna's stock price at the end of Jan 2020 was $20.51 USD. Moderna's stock price at the end of Sep 2021 was $449.38 USD. We are starting to get the documents from FOIA requests now, so we know exactly what the government knew, and when they knew it. We don't have to speculate as to motives for any of the players here. We know who got rich, where the tax dollars went, etc. As I said elsewhere, this was the greatest global transfer of wealth from the public purse to private hands in the shortest amount of time I've ever seen. This makes the financial corruption of the Ukraine conflict look like a joke in comparison. And that's before we get to all the other winners and losers of shutting down the entire world's economy for years.
Profits are absolutely why we don't have some less effective vaccines like the AstraZeneca vaccine anymore.
Vaxzevria has lost approval in Australia due to unacceptable risks of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. It lost approval 20 March 2023. No refunds to the government for our taxes, and no possibility of legal action for individuals if it did happen to turn your blood to tar. Still, plenty of no bid, no fault profits for a dangerous product for AstraZeneca.
https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-…
Anyone looking at the data would get the more effective vaccines, it's not profitable to keep a less effective vaccine around for a handful of irrational people.
We already paid for something like three times the amount of vaccines required for our entire population. Barring expiry those shots are as good as the day they were delivered. We have a surfeit of vaccines, not a deficit.
Besides, anyone looking at the data without blind panic overwhelming all rationality would conclude that for the vast majority of individuals no treatment of any kind was required. We've all had the flu before. We're all mortal and we all will die from something with certainty. No amount of fleeing in terror from the inevitable (whether likely for the individual today or not) will succeed. Most of you lot never needed a vaccine, you needed a Memento Mori. People get sick, and they die, and that is the natural course of living things. You will never stop that. Maybe you'd understand that better if you'd been around more sick people and dead bodies. That's how I did.
Saruname on 02/05/2023 - 11:26 Comment score below threshold.
- 1
- 2