Covid-19 Covid Inquiry, why no Royal Commission?

Remove this Banner Ad

There is no way any country, except maybe North Korea, was ever going to stop Covid getting in, so don't pretend otherwise.

This is the biggest waste of money. An Inquiry into lessons about Covid that won't look at factors that impacted on Australian every day during the pandemic. How the **** will future generations learn any lessons? And why will this Inquiry take 12 months?

At least Brett Sutton has called it out for what it is...
We could have kept it out if we had:

Closed the borders much quicker rather than believing Xi's lies that there was nothing to see. Even though we knew brave Chinese doctors and others were being arrested and killed for trying to warn the world.

Stopped giving exemptions to the ban for anyone with money. No citizenship or diplomatic reason should have been no entry

Properly done quarantine not Dodgy Dan and the NSW version.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Is the excess deaths inquiry done?

Think it is. And with it the weird obsession with blaming excess deaths on vaccine injuries.

Where is Babet now his inquiry has reported in?

Heeellllooo Babet... ?

"The report said the Actuaries Institute of Australia found overall vaccinations helped to prevent higher rates of excess mortality.

The committee also recommended speeding up the opening of the planned Australian Centre for Disease Control, and improving data-keeping to understand the impacts of health events on Indigenous people, those with disabilities and regional residents."

"
Overall, the bureau found excess mortality was down in 2020 due to strict lockdown measures enforced at the height of the pandemic.

In 2021 Australia recorded an excess mortality rate of 1.6 per cent, and the rate jumped to 11.7 per cent in 2022 due in part to the Omicron wave of COVID-19."



How many COV vax's you up to now brother? 8?....9?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That I'm still alive, for one!



Like it wasn't completely obvious to anyone who can read and count.

DO you have significant comorbidities or risks to an infection of Covid?

If you didn't it would have been almost unthinkable that you would have died from covid.
 
DO you have significant comorbidities or risks to an infection of Covid?

If you didn't it would have been almost unthinkable that you would have died from covid.

Anyone 50 years and over with a couple of reasonably common risk factors - including moderate asthma - is at a pretty high risk of becoming very sick and being hospitalised with Covid. This isn't just a nasty cold.

Though I have had all the heart tests, there is heart disease in my family. As there is in many people's family.

I'm not obese at all but about 2/3 to 3/4 of people over about 40 or so ARE in that range.

Meanwhile, my friend's primary school aged child with no risk factors ended up in hospital with Covid and now has permanent lung damage.

At no point am I going to nod in agreement listening to you pretend vaccination is pointless and Covid is harmless.

No point at all.
 
We could have kept it out if we had:

Closed the borders much quicker rather than believing Xi's lies that there was nothing to see. Even though we knew brave Chinese doctors and others were being arrested and killed for trying to warn the world.

Stopped giving exemptions to the ban for anyone with money. No citizenship or diplomatic reason should have been no entry

Properly done quarantine not Dodgy Dan and the NSW version.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
Almost like it should have been a federal government job. Blaming the states for coming up with shit that was entirely outside of their remit remains entirely insane though.

Imagine the states had to invent an income tax system overnight because the feds decided it was to hard to participate anymore. Nobody reasonable would expect it to be immediately good.
 
The enquiry should ask how Murphy sent the country into panic mode with his 50,000 Australians will die.
Given that over 20000 have died despite border closures etc, 50000 is probably an under estimation of what would have happened if the cookers had their way

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Almost like it should have been a federal government job. Blaming the states for coming up with shit that was entirely outside of their remit remains entirely insane though.

Imagine the states had to invent an income tax system overnight because the feds decided it was to hard to participate anymore. Nobody reasonable would expect it to be immediately good.
Feds are the first who should be blamed but Dan's negligence is hard to best given he didn't know who made decisions, appointed a donor to do the work despite them having failed easier tasks again and again, not knowing who was responsible leading to a confused response. All Dan seemed to know was he was leading but wasn't in charge and wasn't to blame.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Covid response report has been released. Comments that school closures, border closures and vaccine mandates were in some cases excessive.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/covid-response-review-released/104531920

"The authors said quarantine should not be implemented the same way again and said with hindsight governments could have made better use of home self-isolation.

"The assumption that Australians returning from home would not adequately quarantine [was] without good evidence… [and] based on the premise that citizens could not be trusted.

"This no doubt reinforced the feelings of oppression voiced by people in quarantine."

They made similar criticism of state lockdowns and mask mandates, saying these were not often guided by rigorous evidence and real-time evaluation.

"Effectiveness was inferred from overall reported case numbers, but this is a very limited approach to evaluation and did not reveal which [restrictions] were effective and whether the stringency settings were right."

Reviewers also noted governments were not collecting real-time information on the mental health impacts of lockdowns or the impact on children of school closures.

"There was no ongoing monitoring of proportionality of responses… Interventions such as lockdowns should only be used as a last resort, not as a frontline disease control measure."

The reviewers said lockdowns eroded public trust and had "lost credibility with the Australian public."
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Covid response report has been released. Comments that school closures, border closures and vaccine mandates were in some cases excessive.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/covid-response-review-released/104531920

"The authors said quarantine should not be implemented the same way again and said with hindsight governments could have made better use of home self-isolation.

"The assumption that Australians returning from home would not adequately quarantine [was] without good evidence… [and] based on the premise that citizens could not be trusted.

"This no doubt reinforced the feelings of oppression voiced by people in quarantine."

They made similar criticism of state lockdowns and mask mandates, saying these were not often guided by rigorous evidence and real-time evaluation.

"Effectiveness was inferred from overall reported case numbers, but this is a very limited approach to evaluation and did not reveal which [restrictions] were effective and whether the stringency settings were right."

Reviewers also noted governments were not collecting real-time information on the mental health impacts of lockdowns or the impact on children of school closures.

"There was no ongoing monitoring of proportionality of responses… Interventions such as lockdowns should only be used as a last resort, not as a frontline disease control measure."

The reviewers said lockdowns eroded public trust and had "lost credibility with the Australian public."
How in God's name could they be expected to do that? Phone survey?

Survey Caller: "How are you coping with the current lockdown?"
Respondent: "It's f***ing sh1t and I want to go outside"

I'm sure they would have got heaps of useful feedback out of that process...

Did the report look at the alternative view... What the health outcomes were in other countries with less restrictive/timely lockdowns?

In a situation that was evolving as quickly as COVID did, could any government, of any persuasion, in any country, be reasonably expected to be guided by "rigourous evidence" in a situation that we have literally not faced for 100 years? And what evaluation methodologies exactly should be used to determine which restriction measures were the most effective?

And apparently there is 860 pages of this????
 
How in God's name could they be expected to do that? Phone survey?

Survey Caller: "How are you coping with the current lockdown?"
Respondent: "It's f***ing sh1t and I want to go outside"

I'm sure they would have got heaps of useful feedback out of that process...

Did the report look at the alternative view... What the health outcomes were in other countries with less restrictive/timely lockdowns?

In a situation that was evolving as quickly as COVID did, could any government, of any persuasion, in any country, be reasonably expected to be guided by "rigourous evidence" in a situation that we have literally not faced for 100 years? And what evaluation methodologies exactly should be used to determine which restriction measures were the most effective?

And apparently there is 860 pages of this????
It's not really critical of the initial lockdown where there were so many unknown quantities that a conservative first approach was best. Its more critical of taking virtually the same approach well after the initial threat, and critical of governments not taking enough of a cost/benefit approach of the prolonged time of school closures, travel and border restrictions, and not fully recognising the social costs of such.
 
Covid response report has been released. Comments that school closures, border closures and vaccine mandates were in some cases excessive.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-29/covid-response-review-released/104531920

"The authors said quarantine should not be implemented the same way again and said with hindsight governments could have made better use of home self-isolation.

"The assumption that Australians returning from home would not adequately quarantine [was] without good evidence… [and] based on the premise that citizens could not be trusted.

"This no doubt reinforced the feelings of oppression voiced by people in quarantine."

They made similar criticism of state lockdowns and mask mandates, saying these were not often guided by rigorous evidence and real-time evaluation.

"Effectiveness was inferred from overall reported case numbers, but this is a very limited approach to evaluation and did not reveal which [restrictions] were effective and whether the stringency settings were right."

Reviewers also noted governments were not collecting real-time information on the mental health impacts of lockdowns or the impact on children of school closures.

"There was no ongoing monitoring of proportionality of responses… Interventions such as lockdowns should only be used as a last resort, not as a frontline disease control measure."

The reviewers said lockdowns eroded public trust and had "lost credibility with the Australian public."
how could anyone trust a word in a report that says "They "strongly endorsed" the federal government's decisiveness and the "visible and significant leadership role" taken on by Mr Morrison."

He was far too slow to close borders and left far too many gaps (by Jan it was obvious Xi was lying about how bad it was and at stage all non citizen entry to Australia should have been banned) He (and state leaders) didn't implement a strategy to quarantine all citizens from returning overseas, wasted billions on badly managed programs etc

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Did they cover the part on which libs let a covid-riddled ship dock in the middle of sydney or when the libs let an infected Fed-Ex crew waltz through Mascot and then when asked about it, just shrugged and that was the last we ever heard about it ???
 

Conclusions: There is an alarming breach in the safety signal threshold concerning cerebral thrombosis AEs after COVID-19 vaccines compared to that of the influenza vaccines and even when compared to that of all other vaccines. An immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary with an absolute contraindication in women of reproductive age.
 

Conclusions: There is an alarming breach in the safety signal threshold concerning cerebral thrombosis AEs after COVID-19 vaccines compared to that of the influenza vaccines and even when compared to that of all other vaccines. An immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary with an absolute contraindication in women of reproductive age.
cool
 

Conclusions: There is an alarming breach in the safety signal threshold concerning cerebral thrombosis AEs after COVID-19 vaccines compared to that of the influenza vaccines and even when compared to that of all other vaccines. An immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary with an absolute contraindication in women of reproductive age.
Just a tip when quoting research. You might want to have a look at the quality of the outlet that the research was published in.

The article you quoted was published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science and sure enough, it appears in the list of predatory journals.


It is a pay to publish model. In other words, they will publish anything. It's a scam journal.

Quote something from a respected, peer-reviewed, journal and your argument will hold much more weight.
 
Oh and it's worth looking at the affiliations of the authors. When two of the authors are listed as "Independent Researcher" and the other two are from "The Wellness Company" and the "McCullough Foundation" (both anti-science, anti-vax), I think we're OK in questioning the expertise of the authors.
 
I think the wheels are potentially changing in people being anti Vax.
You say it like its a bad thing.
And I used to think that people were uneducated that thought they shouldn't get vaccines.
I know some that don't due to religous reasons.
but after covid and the vax injuries think more may want to reduce the amount of vaccines especially due to the publicity that Robert Kennedy has given to the matter.

Do kids get too many vaccines these days?
should they get them when they are older?
Is it right you don't get government assistance if kids aren't vaccinated?

What about the FDA coming out and saying cold and flu medicines like Benadryl do nothing after selling products for 40 years?


IMG_0711.jpeg
 
Last edited:
What about the FDA coming out and saying cold and flu medicines like Benadryl do nothing after selling products for 40 years?

This is why you buy the original formulas with Pseudoephedrine.

but after covid and the vax injuries think more may want to reduce the amount of vaccines especially due to the publicity that Robert Kennedy has given to the matter.

people were uneducated that thought they shouldn't get vaccines.

It's still this.

People wanting to trust their own research over relevant topic experts.

RFK is way, way off base when it comes to his commentary on vaccines. He's not a relevant topic expert.

Same as we'd all ignore RFK telling us how to do advanced physics, we should ignore him on this.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Covid-19 Covid Inquiry, why no Royal Commission?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top