Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those crafty democrats, being fair impartial and following and not questioning the rule of law to show up those who don’t
 
You make it out that you do all these good things for society and other people including me don't.

Cool a Christian and a Catholic person that you know do good things. There's billions of people in the world who do good things and you need to point out two people who just have to follow a religion that you like.

Do you take the most negative possible angle on a post and run with it like it is true in real life? Or just on here?

It was clear in my post why I mentioned the group of Christians and the one Catholic who I look up too in that regard. As to a religion I like... I am certainly beyond happy I was born in a nation that was built on Western Christian values. As I think every Australian should be.

And lastly, I have never thought that other people don't do good things for society. Clear evidence was found in the post that you, yourself highlighted. I specifically said there were many others I looked up too in that area. As to if you do good things or not, I am not sure. I certainly do not attack you personally, and have not done and will not do so. Despite your continual personal attacks on this thread and others against me.
 
Easy to say from what was in the end a very protected environment in Australia. Wasn´t the most comfortable situation for those living in New York seeing temporary street morgues being set up.
New York being one of the States to react very poorly and dangerously. Did not protect their vulnerable and sent infected aged care patients in hospital back to their aged care facilities while still infectious.

They had all the facilities on the two navy floating hospitals USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort and in April 2020 Governor Andrew Cuomo reached an agreement with Trump to bring Covid patients to the Javits Convention Center in Manhattan, another alternative site operated by the military, with 2,500 hospital beds.

The treatment of COVID patients in the US was staggery poor for a number of reasons and 29th Jan 2024 editorial in BMJ states;

the United States saw “eye wateringly high” death rates compared with its peer nations.1 The 1.16 million Americans killed by covid-19 represent 16% of global deaths in a nation with 4% of the world’s population.

However, latest study on excess deaths from "all cause" mortality across 47 countries in the Western World Australia since COVID 19, from 2020 to 2022.

During 2021, when not only containment measures, but also COVID-19 vaccines, were used to tackle virus spread and infection, the highest number of excess deaths was recorded: 1 256 942 excess deaths

Australia's 10 to 20% excess deaths in 2022, one of the worst in the world.


Figure 4

Map of excess mortality P-scores in the Western World (n=47 countries).74 Preliminary and incomplete all-cause mortality reports are available for 2022.

1718198604519.png

1718198739370.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thanks for that!

Do you think the federal government could have done more? Do you think more members of the previous administration should answer questions about how they handled the pandemic, not just Fauci? Or are they above reproach and it’s only Fauci who is allowed to be criticised?
Brix ran the federal government's response and she defiantly should be questioned, as should CDC director Rochelle Walensky.

Fauci was overlord of 6 billion or so in funding Fauci is the mastermind behind the gain-of-function agenda. In 2011, Fauci boldly stated that supercharging viruses in labs was a "risk worth taking." It was Fauci who allocated substantial amounts of taxpayer money to implement his risky gain-of-function project.

Fauci's thrown his Deputy Morens under the bus for deleting emails and avoiding FOI requests and was supported by the Democrats in the congressional hearings. All reports Fauci will be protected because he's too powerful and too many links to government.

As to why Fauci is being protected, and by whom, the answer is multi-faceted. Democrats went all in with Saint Fauci early in the pandemic. They're not going to suddenly admit that Fauci is a crook. Then there's the military and the intelligence community.
 
Those crafty democrats, being fair impartial and following and not questioning the rule of law to show up those who don’t
Not even replying to the satire reflecting real life. Is this the latest anti Trump talking point?

Having to ignore, Hunter had a cushy plea deal from Weiss five months ago that protected him from current and any future charges that they said "just rip it up" when they were confronted with simple questions about it.

Or tax avoidance charges involving multimillions was allowed to pass statues of limitations so couldn't be prosected and IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley testified, the DOJ and its tax division gave special treatment to Hunter Biden and had conflicts of interest throughout that important investigation.
 
No I was responding to the three or four posts directly above mine talking about the efficacy of mask wearing.

I then mentioned my last understanding of the argument which was masks were not shown to protect the user themselves as they tended to touch it a lot with their fingers, seldomly washed or replaced them etc. but rather it helped prevent them from infecting others. Was wondering if any new studies had come out.

I don´t know why you´re conflating masks and vaccines.

They've never been any reliable studies that show masks help prevent infecting others with coronavirus.

More importantly a meta analysis of 54 studies including more than 78,000 people showed symptomatic household spread of cases was 18% and household asymptomatic spread 0.7%!!

This is consistent with other studies that report "asymptomatic index cases as having limited role in household transmission."


No social distancing, masks, close contact, sharing meals, indicate there was almost no asymptomatic spread. So back to 'focused protection'.

JAMA Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Zachary J. Madewell, PhD; Yang Yang, PhD; Ira M. Longini Jr, PhD; M. Elizabeth Halloran, MD, DSc; Natalie E. Dean, PhD

Edit: Posted over three years ago.

 
Last edited:
View attachment 2018668


The difference on the left from 1994 to 2017 is not surprising. My guess would be that in 2024 they would be in the 0 to 0.5 range.

That would appear to indicate that at least from 2004 to 2017 that the Democratic voters have moved more left than the Republicans have moved more right. Certainly quite polarized.

Is it 6x as much more left when considering 1994 to 2017?
 

They've never been any reliable studies that show masks help prevent infecting others with coronavirus.

More importantly a meta analysis of 54 studies including more than 78,000 people showed symptomatic household spread of cases was 18% and household asymptomatic spread 0.7%!!

This is consistent with other studies that report "asymptomatic index cases as having limited role in household transmission."


No social distancing, masks, close contact, sharing meals, indicate there was almost no asymptomatic spread. So back to 'focused protection'.

JAMA Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Zachary J. Madewell, PhD; Yang Yang, PhD; Ira M. Longini Jr, PhD; M. Elizabeth Halloran, MD, DSc; Natalie E. Dean, PhD
We have just had an experience in our household where I was the only one to get Covid. Three of us were on a cruise, in close confines. I was the only one to get infected - there were no masks or extra measures taken. Similarly, I picked up Covid in Melbourne in June last year, but hubby didn't. In January of that year we were in a caravan when he tested positive and I didn't. It's going to take years before we figure everything out.
 
That would appear to indicate that at least from 2004 to 2017 that the Democratic voters have moved more left than the Republicans have moved more right. Certainly quite polarized.

And not by a small amount.

I don't think this is surprising. I don't think I can name a single issue that they haven't moved further to the left on. I wouldn't mind being wrong on that.

The polarisation is an issue. It is good to note who is causing it.
 
We have just had an experience in our household where I was the only one to get Covid. Three of us were on a cruise, in close confines. I was the only one to get infected - there were no masks or extra measures taken. Similarly, I picked up Covid in Melbourne in June last year, but hubby didn't. In January of that year we were in a caravan when he tested positive and I didn't. It's going to take years before we figure everything out.

Yep, it is going to take a very long time. Which is why it is foolish when people talk in absolutes about Covid. As it is with most medical treatments.

That is why they create lists of indications and contraindications for every registered TGA medicine, product, machine etc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

One thing I would like to come out of covid is that the absence of looking and therefore not finding anything should not be taken to mean something is safe as was the case with expecting and recent mothers.

The article done on that, based on a 'study' was absurd. The inclusion and exclusion criteria a sham. Then consider they did not track any medium or long term effects on mother or child...

It was a disgrace. We had our first in 2020 and our second in 2022. In both instances we were challenged strongly about the jab. told we would be 'killing the baby' on more than one occasion. When I asked them if they had read the study not one doctor or midwife had.

My wife has a published journal article and both of us have taken all other vaccines. We wouldn't let her get it while pregnant no matter what we were told.
 
We have just had an experience in our household where I was the only one to get Covid. Three of us were on a cruise, in close confines. I was the only one to get infected - there were no masks or extra measures taken. Similarly, I picked up Covid in Melbourne in June last year, but hubby didn't. In January of that year we were in a caravan when he tested positive and I didn't. It's going to take years before we figure everything out.
Before COVID-19 there were six other human corona viruses that have been in circulation and 60% of the population may have been exposed to.

Cross immunity is a strong possibility and explain why some people had some levels of protection.

Fauci has made the point before COVID -19 that asymptomatic cases do not drive any pandemic and are not dangerous and research with the original variants that asymptomatic cases do not spread the COVID -19 infection.
 
Saudi Arabia moved away from the Petro Dollar last week... I think it is huge news, and yet I can't remember seeing it being covered.
Have you got a link?

I remember that their deal with the US was running out and they didn't renew?
 
Have you got a link?

I remember that their deal with the US was running out and they didn't renew?

Crazy that I can't find links from western sources. It has very real potential long term effects.


Not many results from a Google search. I heard it first on a business podcast.

Screenshot 2024-06-13 at 11.30.11 pm.png
 
The four more years bit is the frightening thing. It can only go one way from here

Oh and people having a crack at the professionalism of Melbourne's doctor putting petracca back on the ground, how is it possible for Biden's doctor to conclude he is in such good physical health that a cognitive screening test was unnecessary in his annual check up? That's a doctor complicit in a cover up if ever I saw one.
 
I was just offering some local nuances that may help to explain the stats. Ideally the right commentator is one who has both lived there and takes the statistical analysis. Otherwise they can be easily misinterpreted. Stats can be chopped up and used to further many different arguments.

Why do you suggest there is rabid anti-immigration? Are there any polls that are quantifying the degree of anti-immigration sentiment or are you suggesting that a vote for these far-right parties equates to being completely aligned with even the most extreme party views, which are often just a bit of clickbait (see Trump).

What if the person wants to vote for tighter immigration control and the one party appears to be the only one to offer that. In spite of it being more than what the voter wanted they might see it as their only option.
There were some posts by others and myself saying almost exactly that.

If I were to take a very, very broad analysis at this point, I'd suggest that it would appear at first glance that the left SPD voters have moved right to the CDU, and the former moderate CDU voters have moved further right for that exact reason - they're the only ones prepared to take a more hardline stance. It's why I was commenting on the relegation of other issues such as climate change (which the right traditionally are less inclined to address) to a position of lesser importance - which might seem counterintuitive at first glance.
Which former SPD voters are moving further right would be of particular interest - it's not like the SPD suddenly disappeared. I haven't gone too far into that yet, but I'd hazard a guess such detailed information would be rather difficult to find.

There is some indication that even the Europeans are beginning to get a little tired of the EU as an organisation in some respects, particularly where immigration issues are concerned.
Some countries apply regulations assiduously, some do not - as evidenced by the refusal of Italy to register refugees at their "point of origin" (being in this case the country which they land in), leaving tens of thousands free to migrate further northward to those countries which do abide by those regulations.
Why Italy might take such a stance is fairly obvious, I'd assume.

With regard to the bolded, I was simply making the comment that "There might be reasons other than a general lack of interest, as well. The state of the economy does indeed shape mindsets, but it doesn't generally shift them this dramatically, once established. Moderate people don't suddenly become rabidly anti-immigration because they're not doing so well economically." in response to yours regarding the "dey took our jerbs" bit when speaking about Eastern German economic woes.

Context, Kuhni. It's important.
 
Hope your German is good. 60% - surely this is not true ?

Alice Weidel AfD leader: “Those who work are stupid because they break their backs not for themselves but for others. Over 60% of those on benefits in Germany do not have a German passport. This is why immigrants (fake asylum seekers) arrive!" This is case throughout Europe. Stop this madness now!
You have to be careful with this sort of thing.
I'm looking into it slowly. Again as I noted in my response to Kuhni, the statistical breakdowns are often rather difficult to find.

At its core, the statement is likely to be true - if you're a refugee, you're going to head to those countries which will look after you. Bit of a no-brainer really.
But it's not any real indication of why those refugees left their country of origin in the first place - only why Germany might have been chosen as an eventual destination, particularly when one bears in mind the Italy thing I mentioned above. The lines between actual refugees and economic migrants are becoming increasingly blurred.

There are a couple of points of interest I've come across though.
Often, this sort of rhetoric fails to take into account the Ukrainians, and mostly centres around refugees of African and Middle Eastern origin.
Of particular interest with regard to this point is that the Ukrainians in Denmark have an almost 80% rate of employment after arriving since 2022 after the Russian invasion. One could infer from that alone that they're settling in quite well.
There might be several reasons for this, importantly among which is the fact that the Ukrainians are, generally speaking, in possession of better educational qualifications, and the language barriers aren't going to be as difficult as they might be for those from other areas. Those qualifications may be in many instances leading to higher paying employment, where the comparison between remaining on benefits and taking a job isn't as important.
And then there's the cultural aspect.

In Germany, however, they're not doing nearly so well - around 50% employment rates.
Some reasons for that difference might be the rate at which asylum seekers and refugees are accepted by both countries, the flat numbers, the economic environment (obviously, the jobs have to be there in the first place) and restrictions around educational requirements... and there are others. There are significant issues with the repatriation of asylum seekers and refugees after they have been refused - it's not so simple as putting someone on a boat home, with laws in place preventing refugees from being sent back to where they came from if that country of origin is deemed by the EU to be an area in which they might face harm or discrimination if they were to be sent back.
So, in Germany again, those refugees which have been refused asylum but can neither be deported nor legally obtain work in Germany just sort of ... hang around. On benefits.
It's a bowl of spaghetti.

Not as simple as that tweet would suggest, though. Keep it in mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top