It's good everybody ran out and got AstraZeneca and didn't make the "choice" to wait for Pfizer.

1 hour ago, Slick said:

At the end of the day, everyone who is hesitant should speak to a trusted GP about vaccination.

Given any medical professional is suspended or sacked and lose their creditations if they suggest anything other than “get jabbed” you’re unlikely to hear anything but a one sided conversation. 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

if there was an issue, we definitely would've seen it by now

I’d consider the significant number of heart related reactions, especially in young men, to be an issue. 870 in the first week of November alone.

1 hour ago, Slick said:

We're really lucky that we feel like COVID-19 won't impact us in Australia

I agree 

 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

Every side-effect, every death post vaccination, every reported sniffle is logged and checked.

That’s not the experience I have heard or seen first hand. Any reaction is at first attempt palmed off as “coincidental”. 

 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

This data has been misreported by politicians and fringe circles en masse

Data has been misreported and used since day 1. It’s a documented fact that initially there was an overstatement of deaths attributed to covid. If you die with covid, you are ascertained to have died because of covid. 

 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

Our federal government wasn't bothered to build quarantine facilities that it was supposed to by law, it refused to roll-out a national strategy for COVID-19 until it was forced to and absolutely bungled/lied about getting vaccines when we needed it.

Without doubt, our federal govt royally f**ked up, as did states. We had CHO’s say that getting AZ jab if you were young was more dangerous than getting covid. Then a week later they backtracked. If you don’t think that doesn’t play on people’s minds about the honesty and transparency we are receiving then I don’t know what will.

 

1 hour ago, Slick said:

let alone coerce and force people into getting vaccinated.

Mandating that people have to get a jab to keep their job, career, livelihood is the definition of force. Providing “rewards” for people to get vaccinated is the definition of coercion. 

 

1 hour ago, Baconjack said:

Isn't this just pretty much identical logic that anti vax use to justify why they don't take other vaccines?

I’m not sure - i am not an anti-vaxxer.

1 hour ago, themagician said:

But how do you know how much testing there was on childhood vaccines. They’ve been around much longer, but that doesn’t mean they won’t have life long impacts, much like the Covid vaccines could also.

The average testing and data collection phase for vaccines prior to a full scale approval and rollout is near to 16 years. 
 

there is decades of data on the potential short/medium/long term reactions to childhood vaxs. Parents can make the decision for their children knowing what those are, they can’t in this instance as we have no medium/long term data whatsoever and even the short term data is murky in how it’s being reported 

 

Edited November 26, 20214 yr by Brad2912

Quote

there was an overstatement of deaths attributed to covid.

I take exception to this one.

In any country, a certain number of deaths is expected from all causes (accident, illness, old age, homicide, suicide) and this remains reasonably stable from year to year (same as the birth rate remains reasonably stable from year to year)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

 

But in places where the pandemic was bad, way more people were dying than usual, so clearly a new dangerous illness was the new kid on the block picking people off.

A handful of deaths possibly being misatribued is really irrevant if hundreds of thousands of people of extra people are dying overall.

Edited November 26, 20214 yr by Gazza

Wait did I just do a mic drop a week ago?

@Brad2912didn't have anything to say on the above.

Its always a bit hard to argue with common sense..........

59 minutes ago, Gazza said:

Wait did I just do a mic drop a week ago?

@Brad2912didn't have anything to say on the above.

Just realised I don’t want to spend my time on this forum arguing. No one is going to change another persons mind (nor is it or was it my intention to). 
 

i’m happy to make a comment here and there regarding specifics of mandates on the parks and impact etc - but just don’t have the appetite of a back and forth on the covid issue en masse. 

Edited December 3, 20214 yr by Brad2912

On 25/11/2021 at 2:19 PM, New display name said:

So if I made a comment about you that you didn't agree with, you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself?

 

It's also not a discussion when it just becomes a pile on.

 

 

The question that should be asked is - why is it a pile on? Are people bullying those with views different to theirs, or are people simply calling into question a questionable statement with facts and evidence that disprove that statement?

I've been away for a week, and yes Gaz, looks like Mic drop! I would like to make a contribution here (and just to add - my first day back at work today so i've been writing this most of the day - well before the rest of today's comments were added!)

I'll try not to reagitate the same ideals already mentioned... @Slick has spent a lot of time providing well researched sources, so in those respects i'll just say 'ditto'.

I would like to add:

On 26/11/2021 at 9:28 AM, Brad2912 said:

and the label of “anti-vaxxers” is media sensationalism bullshit at its best, and it’s now being driven into common vernacular in the community which is disappointing. A good 90% of people who have not have a covid shot as not “anti-vaxxers”, they’re people who have had all their childhood and scheduled vaccines during their life, but are making a personal choice not to have a covid shot. 

Just going to say 'citation needed' on this 90% figure. If you're against getting this particular vaccine then you are "anti-vaccine" regardless of your reasons why. That's how words work. It is getting a bit over-used, and some may find the label distasteful, but i'm pretty sure that it is a label that is meant to be seen as distasteful for a reason.

 

On 26/11/2021 at 11:30 AM, Slick said:

Every side-effect, every death post vaccination, every reported sniffle is logged and checked. That data is also widely available - nothing is being hidden. This data has been misreported by politicians and fringe circles en masse,  circumnavigating our spam and privacy acts in the process. More often than not, opposing, conservative opinions cherry-pick data or publish data in journals that aren't well known and aren't subject to peer review.

 

I just want to back this one up with a personal story to share my own experiences... 

On 26/11/2021 at 12:36 PM, Brad2912 said:

That’s not the experience I have heard or seen first hand. Any reaction is at first attempt palmed off as “coincidental”. 

About 7 weeks ago, my wife experienced an episode that scared the crap out of our whole family, and spent a week in hospital*. We were questioned at initial triage whether we had been vaccinated, when, where, did we have the vac card showing the dose and batch numbers, and all of this was logged by the registrar. This was double checked and verified by several wonderful medical professionals in the ED during the initial days. 

Nothing was eliminated at that time. Nothing was palmed off. Everything was explored. CT scans, MRIs, even lumbar punctures were explored to try to determine what was at play. Even days later while she was on ward - they were still seeking opinions of specialists in various fields - including vax related fields - as to possible causes as nothing they did was turning up results.

Fast forward a little and we've ruled out at this point that the vax was a factor (completely ruled out) but we discussed this with the doctors and they even had a specialist in immunology come down to discuss with us at length what the possibilities were before finally ruling it out. Nothing was palmed off, and everything was explored to find the answers.

TL:DR - wife had a medical episode and one of the first things the ED did was check vax status and any possible impacts it may have had, and continued to explore the possibilities that the vax had contributed until they were able to determine - with evidence - that it had not.

(*She isn't fully recovered at this point, but we have a fair idea of the cause and the treatment and its just now a matter of time for everything to work out and fingers crossed no lasting impacts)

I felt the need to share this story because I am getting sick of generalised statements without even basic details given to support the events.

On 26/11/2021 at 12:36 PM, Brad2912 said:

Given any medical professional is suspended or sacked and lose their creditations if they suggest anything other than “get jabbed” you’re unlikely to hear anything but a one sided conversation. 

I’d consider the significant number of heart related reactions, especially in young men, to be an issue. 870 in the first week of November alone.

<snip>

Without doubt, our federal govt royally f**ked up, as did states. We had CHO’s say that getting AZ jab if you were young was more dangerous than getting covid. Then a week later they backtracked. If you don’t think that doesn’t play on people’s minds about the honesty and transparency we are receiving then I don’t know what will.

Mandating that people have to get a jab to keep their job, career, livelihood is the definition of force. Providing “rewards” for people to get vaccinated is the definition of coercion.

<snip>

The average testing and data collection phase for vaccines prior to a full scale approval and rollout is near to 16 years. 

 

Medical Professionals Silenced? 😮 

Sounds like a black bag job. Cold war era stuff. Can you provide any links showing any of these suspensions or sackings? Are they being silenced? Or are they being discredited by being unable to support their assertions? Are the accreditation organisations revoking the accreditation because their allegations have no basis in science, as opposed to a coverup? More generalisations without basic details.

Heart Related Reactions?

What about these heart statistics? Are they in Australia? Worldwide? Other countries more prone to heart disease? Were those cases medically susceptible to heart disease or defect? What sort of reactions were they? How many died? What was the total pool? 870 out of 1000 is huge, but 870 out of a million isn't much different to some side effects of other proven vaccines in long term use... It sounds like a scary number, but it reminds me of this meme:

870 sounds like a big problem - but it becomes the trolley problem. 

 

Chief Health Officers Backtracked!

CHO's should backtrack. They should act on the best information they have available at the time. In the early days, the advice was that masks were not required except in a medical setting, this was later expanded to a point where for many, mask wearing is part of the daily routine - even outside. Even now that the restrictions have eased.  We should not point to the CHO changing their advice as a sign of weakness, but of the strength of our systems changing the outcomes based on new evidence. The honesty and transparency is why they "backtrack". They've acted on the strength of the evidence put before them at the time.

Remember - a recent Prime Minister of Australia was once quoted saying that you can only hold him to his words when they are prepared statements, and anything said 'off the cuff' when asked a question in a press conference shouldn't be treated as 'gospel truth'.

The only weakness is continuing to blindly argue something despite all evidence pointing otherwise.

Force and Coercion

Polio. Smallpox. Things of this nature. People saw it as a duty to their community to get vaccinated. Nobody needed to be coerced or forced to do anything because the advice came from the experts and people listened to them and trusted them. 

<its post edit me here saying I really got carried away on this one. suffice to say the paragraphs of arguments would have fallen on deaf ears>

Put simply - those who willingly support their community should be allowed to benefit from it. Those who do not wish to support their community by doing their part, should not be allowed to participate beyond their human right entitlement. access to food, clothing and shelter is paramount. Access to medical care is permitted, but probably unnecessary. However - employment is not a right, and that is why those folks are entitled to claim welfare if they cannot work.

Average testing and data collection periods

The covid vaccine has had some development ongoing for a decade. This is not the first coronavirus. Researchers learned a lot from SARS and from MERS. Covid-19 was far more highly transmissible but less deadly than some other coronaviruses, but the research was ongoing. The next coronavirus was expected, although perhaps not as soon. 

Combine that with the fact that world governments (and the WHO) labelled this a pandemic, and literally THREW money at the researchers to continue development. 

The covid-19 vaccine vector was developed in about 12 months off the back of years of coronavirus vaccine research. But so is the annual flu vaccine. Every year new flu strains show up and the jab they offer next winter is based off of the strains seen in the northern hemisphere right now. That's 6 months development of a new vaccine for a strain of Influenza - which will be worthless in another 12-24 months when the new strains come along. 

These days the fluvax is a quadrivalent vaccine based on the most prevalent FOUR strains. All of them, a different vaccine. Almost all of them, observed in the wild for the first time in the prior 2 years or so.

And again (and i've said this before) they didn't start from scratch for Covid-19. They already have vaccines in testing and development for other coronavirus variants. modifying it based on years of research to fit a new strain isn't anything new in immunology. "It was rushed and hasn't been properly tested" is a bullshit argument.

Glad you got that off your chest. Appreciate your opinion. I disagree with quite a lot of it, but don’t have the energy or the inclination to retort it. We’ve both had our say on our thoughts - they are clearly gulfs apart - and that’s fine. 
 

unless it’s related to mandates impacting specifically theme parks, I’m out of this. Mic drop away all you like. 

I mean I might disagree with @Brad2912 about covid, but I don't get the obsession people have in wanting to keep the conversation going either 

9 hours ago, joz said:

I mean I might disagree with @Brad2912 about covid, but I don't get the obsession people have in wanting to keep the conversation going either 

In my opinion, combatting the misinformation about first the virus, and then the vaccine is an even bigger battle than the virus itself.

I personally find it appalling that someone would actively choose not to be vaccinated but I respect their choice to do so - however I can’t stand idly by while someone spouts baseless and unsupported “alternative facts” without challenge.
 

They may have chosen not to, but to allow them to spread misinformation and make broad generalised statements that potentially instil doubt into others because they don’t know any better is wrong and should not go unchecked without rebuttal.

 

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

From April 14, the non-vaccinated will be allowed back into theme parks 

Hahahahaha, could see this coming a mile away

3 hours ago, Ash said:

Hahahahaha, could see this coming a mile away

What do you mean?

The suggestion was always that once the state had reached a sufficient level of fully-vaccinated residents, the need to 'separate the herd' was lessened. We saw NSW lower restrictions once they had reached 90% double vaxxed.

QLD health reported earlier today that we are now at 91.79% double vaxxed. The 90% threshhold has long been understood to be a level where herd immunity is largely effective - and removing this restriction before the Easter weekend (and announcing it more than a week away to enable venues to adjust their arrangements accordingly) is both expected and appropriate.

Ok, just remember the target was 70%, than 80%, now 90%. And now Thursday next week the unvaxxed can go anywhere. This is nothing to do with health. And there is an election coming up. 

Its a federal election and this is a state based decision. 
And the target was always 90% so…

9 hours ago, Ash said:

could see this coming a mile away

The Earth curves about 8 inches per mile. As a result, on a flat surface with your eyes 5 feet or so off the ground, the farthest edge that you can see is about 3 miles away.