Victorian Covid Outbreak 2021

[faible]

Happy to leave the second part, as mentioned it was over the top.

I hear what you are saying and it seems a lot more fair, reasonable and logical than some I have seen. Here and in other places/discussions.

My only gripe with it is that there is still so much unknown, not just with the vaccine(s), but the future of the virus as well. Yes we know the benefits of the vaccines for the short term, but where is the mid to long term data. We know there isn't any, agree with it or not that is many peoples reluctance and fear.

Anyone genuinely struggling with reluctance or fear should talk to their GP about their concerns.

One of the worst things people are doing is getting caught up in the media shitstorm, the social media memefest, and the general sensationalism and misinformation that flies around.

A GP is the most reasonably accessible person that is suitably qualified and authorised to dispense health advice. They can do so with access to an individuals health records to discuss specific concerns they may have.

People need to understand that most of the places they're getting information, is coming via people that simply aren't qualified to provide that information, no matter how well they package it. Doing Your Own Research is great, in-theory, except it neglects that most people don't have the requisite level of knowledge and expertise to process and assess the information that's out there.

Bodies like the TGA do have that knowledge and expertise, they're there specifically to assess these kinds of products and monitor them on-going

 

[I Rock]

Last I read, it reduces that risk. The best benefit is the reduction of risk of severe illness and death however. Which directly benefits the health system.

Ok, but for how long and what does continued use do over time. Rhetorical question, I don't expect to know that let alone answer it.

Last I read, they're not.

Same, but there are studies (the validity of them I don't know so take it how you like) showing that over time that is not always the case. Again because of how quick the vaccines went into production, there is not the long term data to go with it. So there is a chance what we know now, isn't what we know later.

The risks for the high risk are reduced by the vaccine. The risks for the low-risk are reduced by the vaccine.

The risks of being vaccinated are significantly lower than the risks of being exposed to the virus whilst unvaccinated.

Every person vaccinated is at a reduced risk of taking up a hospital bed in the future due to COVID-19. Which leaves more beds available for those who do end up there anyway, or those who need those beds due to other things such as a heart attack or road trauma.

This benefit comes with a short-term risk significantly lower than being exposed to COVID-19 unvaccinated, and currently, across an enormous sample size, we're not seeing huge amounts of mid-term side effects appear, which makes long-term side effects less likely by the day.

No argument, but again for how long and what are possible outcomes. Will the bad outweight the good over time, will those with multiple dosages get a compromised immune system etc (again rhetorical). I know it may seem a reach or paranoia, but if people want to learn about everyone and their positions on this and not just shout down there own beliefs. Then is should be mentioned.

Until such time as the current vaccines no longer work against mutations, or the protection declines and is boosted with a booster.
Fortunately we're pretty good at updating vaccines for new strains of existing things, e.g. the annual flu booster.

But we know the Flu shot and the Covid Vaccines don't work the same way. So for someone like me who doesn't like... actually has a fear of these sorts of things. I need to know the risks associated with multiple exposure/use.

Yes, the sad nature of a global pandemic.

Amen on that.

 

[morningbrown]

I said "Safe for 99%+ of healthy adults below 50." which means that covid is not going to kill 99%+ of HEALTHY adults below 50.. Those with co-morbidities are not 'healthy'. I already said if I was a fat person with diabetes I would definitely take the vax over betting on my immune system.

Through dozens and dozens of pages in this thread you've shown that you are clearly a very troubled young man with a distinct lack of critical thinking or ability to provide any proof to a multitude of arguments, many of which are just regurgitated from the Joe Rogans and Avi Yeminis of the world.

But I will make one point, very slowly and in plain English for you to understand.

These co-morbidities are things that people can go their entire lives without discovering, and if they are detected, can be managed through medication and lifestyle changes. However if this person, and we have had this proven to us literally hundreds of thousands of times in the past 18 months, is not vaccinated against COVID, then they can detoriate and die within days or weeks.

So basically your idea that COVID is "Safe for healthy 99+ of healthy adults below 50" is complete bullshit, because even if we don't account for those without co-morbidities, like this poor soul who literally died YESTERDAY...

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/healthy-sydney-dad-who-died-of-covid-named/news-story/3ae158d49ad6b5d03562a71aa4d64c8a

there are so many people in our country who could live completely normal and long lives if they are vaccinated.

Having a co-morbidity shouldn't be a death sentence. And it isn't for the most part if the 10% of the nation(excluding those who medically cannot) would just roll up their ****ing sleeves and get the jab.

 

[kingswood71]

Same, but there are studies (the validity of them I don't know so take it how you like) showing that over time that is not always the case. Again because of how quick the vaccines went into production, there is not the long term data to go with it. So there is a chance what we know now, isn't what we know later.
But we know the Flu shot and the Covid Vaccines don't work the same way. So for someone like me who doesn't like... actually has a fear of these sorts of things. I need to know the risks associated with multiple exposure/use.

Just to play devils advocate, there isnt any long term studies on covid infection either. We do not know if covid infection when it enters the cell causes alterations of human DNA. Given its the whole virus, this is more conceivable than a small mRNA molecule.
As I said earlier, all viruses enter the cell. All of them interact once inside the cell, triggering a cascade.
Indeed, human DNA contains about 10% viral information that humans have acquired over many millions of years.
Even the flu vaccine particles enter the cell and cause a response.
Wouldnt it be a terrible thing if 20 years from now people are developing strange leukemias for example, and it turns out that covid is a viral oncogene? We dont know if this isnt the case....Likely isnt, but why risk it??
There is more likelyhood of that happening than the vaccines doing it, simply because the vaccines are one tiny part of the virus, the virus is all of the virus's genetic info.
The whole "we dont know the long term effects" argument is a bit bizarre to me simply because we dont know the long term effects of covid infection either!

 

[theyellowsash]

These co-morbidities are things that people can go their entire lives without discovering, and if they are detected, can be managed through medication and lifestyle changes.

i'll also add, they are very often (if not in the majority of cases) not lifestyle dependent. People are born with or develop issues through no fault of their own, rather than the 'theyre just fat, lazy smokers who's bad health is their own fault so idgaf' narrative these types like to go on about.

No decent human being would argue that we should just throw to the wolves the people who have been unlucky in developing health issues, like some kind of sacrifice, just to placate people and their conspiracies/alternative (ie fake/unproven) medicines. Especially when there is an easy, safe and free thing we can all do to make things safer for everyone.

 

[I Rock]

Just to play devils advocate, there isnt any long term studies on covid infection either. We do not know if covid infection when it enters the cell causes alterations of human DNA. Given its the whole virus, this is more conceivable than a small mRNA molecule.
As I said earlier, all viruses enter the cell. All of them interact once inside the cell, triggering a cascade.
Indeed, human DNA contains about 10% viral information that humans have acquired over many millions of years.
Even the flu vaccine particles enter the cell and cause a response.
Wouldnt it be a terrible thing if 20 years from now people are developing strange leukemias for example, and it turns out that covid is a viral oncogene? We dont know if this isnt the case....Likely isnt, but why risk it??
There is more likelyhood of that happening than the vaccines doing it, simply because the vaccines are one tiny part of the virus, the virus is all of the virus's genetic info.
The whole "we dont know the log term effects" arguement is a bit bizarre to me simply because we dont know the long term effects of covid infection either!

I'm hearing you and I don't dismiss it. In fact fair play. But say for arguments sake, an unvaccintted person is not guaranteed (despite the media suggesting otherwise) to contract covid. A vaccinated person is guaranteed to have been given the vaccinations.

 

[theyellowsash]

I'm hearing you and I don't dismiss it. In fact fair play. But say for arguments sake, an unvaccintted person is not guaranteed (despite the media suggesting otherwise) to contract covid. A vaccinated person is guaranteed to have been given the vaccinations.

well, given its more contagious than chicken pox, everyone would catch it if left alone, so thats a completely moot point.

the other gaping hole in that argument being the relative rate of side effects, because given covids 1% mortality rate, and there has been only 9 deaths from 35+ million vaccines (0.000025%), its not even a competition. you would need to vaccinate the entire country 1 and a half times just to equal the death toll of just 1000 people catching covid.

and before you chime in with the "BuT cOvId Is SaFe FoR yOuNg HeAlThY pEoPlE" bullshit, covid has still caused more deaths in young people than the vaccine.

 

[theyellowsash]

I'm hearing you and I don't dismiss it. In fact fair play. But say for arguments sake, an unvaccintted person is not guaranteed (despite the media suggesting otherwise) to contract covid. A vaccinated person is guaranteed to have been given the vaccinations.

well, given its more contagious than chicken pox, everyone would catch it if left alone, so thats a completely moot point.

the other gaping hole in that argument being the relative rate of side effects, because given covids 1% mortality rate, and there has been only 9 deaths from 35+ million vaccines (0.000025%), its not even a competition. you would need to vaccinate the entire country 1 and a half times just to equal the death toll of just 1000 people catching covid.

and before you chime in with the "BuT cOvId Is SaFe FoR yOuNg HeAlThY pEoPlE" bullshit, covid has still caused more deaths in young people than the vaccine.

 

[Gruffles]

Anyway, you go on supporting it. You are not going to like what comes next.

The end of the pandemic and a return to normal living? I for one would like that.

 

[I Rock]

well, given its more contagious than chicken pox, everyone would catch it if left alone, so thats a completely moot point.

the other gaping hole in that argument being the relative rate of side effects, because given covids 1% mortality rate, and there has been only 9 deaths from 35+ million vaccines (0.000025%), its not even a competition. you would need to vaccinate the entire country 1 and a half times just to equal the death toll of just 1000 people catching covid.

and before you chime in with the "BuT cOvId Is SaFe FoR yOuNg HeAlThY pEoPlE" bullshit, covid has still caused more deaths in young people than the vaccine.

Thanks for chiming in.

2 points:

1: I can't recall ever saying "BuT cOvId Is SaFe FoR yOuNg HeAlThY pEoPlE", so not sure why I would now. I have looked at data and percentages and mentioned those at time (in fact even got my numbers wrong on one). But thanks for the heads up.

2: You do realise the conversation you joined was playing hypothetical and potential scenarios. Not a discussion on this is what will happen? So the moot point is your post. If you like we can make it literal, so in order for that to be, get back to me on what the mortality rate is for both vaxed and non vaxed in 6 - 12 - 18 and 24 months etc, including all residual effect of vaccines and covid all the way up to 20 years to collate with Kingy's post. Then we will have the data to actually work of.

 

[kingswood71]

I'm hearing you and I don't dismiss it. In fact fair play. But say for arguments sake, an unvaccintted person is not guaranteed (despite the media suggesting otherwise) to contract covid. A vaccinated person is guaranteed to have been given the vaccinations.

Based on my knowledge accumulated over many years, I know which one I would prefer

 

[Gruffles]

Ok, but for how long and what does continued use do over time. Rhetorical question, I don't expect to know that let alone answer it.


Same, but there are studies (the validity of them I don't know so take it how you like) showing that over time that is not always the case. Again because of how quick the vaccines went into production, there is not the long term data to go with it. So there is a chance what we know now, isn't what we know later.


No argument, but again for how long and what are possible outcomes. Will the bad outweight the good over time, will those with multiple dosages get a compromised immune system etc (again rhetorical). I know it may seem a reach or paranoia, but if people want to learn about everyone and their positions on this and not just shout down there own beliefs. Then is should be mentioned.

I think these questions are absolutely fair to throw up and, as I've mentioned before, I completely understand that some may have uncertainty over the vaccine because it's new. I do have an issue with those people then relying on information from a forum, social media, or other media to then formulate their decision and would hope they'd trust their GP much more, but that's another topic.

The one thing I think about with these questions though is the forgotten fact that we're currently in a pandemic. Much the same as the Spanish flu, things had to be developed and happen as quickly as possible to reduce the impact on the population.

We're unfortunately in a position where the best CURRENT option is to vaccinate or isolate until we have a grasp of the virus or have viable treatments for those infected (which seem to be on their way now).

 

[I Rock]

I think these questions are absolutely fair to throw up and, as I've mentioned before, I completely understand that some may have uncertainty over the vaccine because it's new. I do have an issue with those people then relying on information from a forum, social media, or other media to then formulate their decision and would hope they'd trust their GP much more, but that's another topic.

The one thing I think about with these questions though is the forgotten fact that we're currently in a pandemic. Much the same as the Spanish flu, things had to be developed and happen as quickly as possible to reduce the impact on the population.

We're unfortunately in a position where the best CURRENT option is to vaccinate or isolate until we have a grasp of the virus or have viable treatments for those infected (which seem to be on their way now).

Great post!

I don't disagree, however we need open and honest communication between all levels of society and views. I think people need to understand that more information will come to light and that may change how we operate or view the approach the last 18 months etc. I saw a great video today (started with the bloke who's channel it was doing a bit of jibber jabbing) of a a medical discussion forum or similar and someone talking about the need for open communication, and if we had had that from the start would we be seeing and doing something different. It came up as a random suggestion so not sure I will be able to find again but will look when I get the chance.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So is getting covid for the majority of the population.. Children especially.

So you are happy with a 1.2% chance of dying, rather than taking a vaccine to mitigage this.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You are highly wrong. Safe for 99%+ of healthy adults below 50. Only ones at high risk are the elderly and those with underlying conditions. Know at least 15 people who got it - all completely fine. One person over 70 got it, went to hospital and was discharged a few days later - now has natural immunity which is way better than the 'vax' and doesn't require boosters lol... T-Cells for the win

So you think losing 300,000 Australians to covid by having no vaccination program is not a material issue.

 

[Gruffles]

Great post!

I don't disagree, however we need open and honest communication between all levels of society and views. I think people need to understand that more information will come to light and that may change how we operate or view the approach the last 18 months etc. I saw a great video today (started with the bloke who's channel it was doing a bit of jibber jabbing) of a a medical discussion forum or similar and someone talking about the need for open communication, and if we had had that from the start would we be seeing and doing something different. It came up as a random suggestion so not sure I will be able to find again but will look when I get the chance.

I can't disagree with that at all. Open and honest communication is absolutely important in times like these. I'm not going to back the government in terms of being completely open and honest (when are they anyway??), but I do understand that they were also needing to make quick decisions during an unprecedented time (which is why responses were different all over the globe. I've mentioned this in a post somewhere yesterday I think).

However, open and honest communication needs to come from all sides (including the government). What I mean by this is the fact that there are clearly people who are highly respected by some, but not in a health related field, making unsubstantiated claims and giving out health advice that is then influencing the people that respect them. Why do people clamp onto something said by a media personality and decide this is better advice than what they would get from a health professional? I will never know the answer to this.

EDIT - Sorry, just to add to this - This is why I trust the data. People suck. The problem here is that people look at a number like "1%" and think, 'Wow, that's really small', but it's only small if 100% is also a small number.

 

[theyellowsash]

You are highly wrong. Safe for 99%+ of healthy adults below 50. Only ones at high risk are the elderly and those with underlying conditions. Know at least 15 people who got it - all completely fine. One person over 70 got it, went to hospital and was discharged a few days later - now has natural immunity which is way better than the 'vax' and doesn't require boosters lol... T-Cells for the win

youre right, covid is 'safe' for 99% of people.

the vaccines are safe for 99.999975% of people (and all those deaths were the az vaccine)

statistically, for every 1 person who would die of a vaccine, 40,000 would die from covid. its basic maths.

cancer australia estimates men have a 0.2% chance of dying from testicular cancer. the vaccine is literally safer than having testicles.

 

[Gruffles]

cancer australia estimates men have a 0.2% chance of dying from testicular cancer. the vaccine is literally safer than having testicles.

Shhh... We'll have castration mandates suggested next!

 

[kingswood71]

Just to play devils advocate, there isnt any long term studies on covid infection either. We do not know if covid infection when it enters the cell causes alterations of human DNA. Given its the whole virus, this is more conceivable than a small mRNA molecule.
As I said earlier, all viruses enter the cell. All of them interact once inside the cell, triggering a cascade.
Indeed, human DNA contains about 10% viral information that humans have acquired over many millions of years.
Even the flu vaccine particles enter the cell and cause a response.
Wouldnt it be a terrible thing if 20 years from now people are developing strange leukemias for example, and it turns out that covid is a viral oncogene? We dont know if this isnt the case....Likely isnt, but why risk it??
There is more likelyhood of that happening than the vaccines doing it, simply because the vaccines are one tiny part of the virus, the virus is all of the virus's genetic info.
The whole "we dont know the long term effects" argument is a bit bizarre to me simply because we dont know the long term effects of covid infection either!

On the oncogene thing. Did some reading. Doesnt seem to have been studied in depth (yet), but did find one study:
"Thus, SARS-CoV-2 is closer to oncoviruses than to non-oncoviruses. We should point out that it may take over a decade or longer for cancer to emerge post-infection Thus, increased cancer rates might be a long term consequence of COVID-19" "We next performed a 3-way merge between the interactome/GWAS neoplasm comorbidity enriched MOA proteins, the SARS-CoV-2 differentially expressed genes, and the COSMIC database oncogenes. We found 11 and 1 overlapping gene(s) from the interactome and GWAS 3-way merge, respectively. The pathway analysis on the overlapping COVID-19 differentially expressed genes and the COSMIC database indicates that viral replication and oncogenesis employ similar biochemical mechanisms. Indeed, a number of the identified pathways such as interferon-gamma signaling, immunoregulatory interactions between lymphoid and non-lymphoid cell and antigen processing-cross presentation are related to viral replication and oncogenesis"

Prediction of severe adverse events, modes of action and drug treatments for COVID-19’s complications - Scientific Reports

Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, some COVID-19 patients experience severe host driven adverse events. To treat these complications, their underlying etiology and drug treatments must be identified. Thus, a novel AI methodology MOATAI-VIR, which predicts disease-protein-pathway relationships and...

www.nature.com

Lets hope not!

 

[adogsfan5]

Italy have just dropped their Covid death rates by 97%. 3,783 deaths FROM Covid instead of 132,161 WITH covid.

Perhaps things aren’t as gloom and doom as we think they are.

 

[faible]

Italy have just dropped their Covid death rates by 97%. 3,783 deaths FROM Covid instead of 132,161 WITH covid.

Perhaps things aren’t as gloom and doom as we think they are.

Fact Check: Did Italy Revise Down Its Covid-19 Death Toll To Below 4000? | BOOM Live

 

[adogsfan5]

Fact Check: Did Italy Revise Down Its Covid-19 Death Toll To Below 4000? | BOOM Live

ohhhhhh who do we believe?! They both look like shonky articles

Italy's 'From Covid' Death Count Drastically Reduced By Over 97 Percent

Global Technocrat shills who pumped death-rate hysteria to the media, along with dystopian policies, have been exposed in Italy. Worldwide, it is now likely that over 90 percent of deaths were "with COVID" and not "from COVID." This could go down in history as the biggest con the world has ever...

www.technocracy.news

 

[theyellowsash]

Fact Check: Did Italy Revise Down Its Covid-19 Death Toll To Below 4000? | BOOM Live

but but but, instagram said so

 

[theyellowsash]

ohhhhhh who do we believe?! They both look like shonky articles

Italy's 'From Covid' Death Count Drastically Reduced By Over 97 Percent

Global Technocrat shills who pumped death-rate hysteria to the media, along with dystopian policies, have been exposed in Italy. Worldwide, it is now likely that over 90 percent of deaths were "with COVID" and not "from COVID." This could go down in history as the biggest con the world has ever...

www.technocracy.news

anyone who trusts an article that beings with 'global technocrat shills' is a moron.

i'll trust the article which quoted one of the authors of the paper stating that their paper is being severely misrepresented

 

[Gruffles]

ohhhhhh who do we believe?! They both look like shonky articles

Italy's 'From Covid' Death Count Drastically Reduced By Over 97 Percent

Global Technocrat shills who pumped death-rate hysteria to the media, along with dystopian policies, have been exposed in Italy. Worldwide, it is now likely that over 90 percent of deaths were "with COVID" and not "from COVID." This could go down in history as the biggest con the world has ever...

www.technocracy.news

I'm not quite sure they BOTH look like shonky articles. Personally, I'd believe the clarification from the ISS stated in the article owen87 posted. It makes sense. The smaller "revised" number is the number of people who died who didn't have a comorbidity. The larger number includes those that did have a comorbidity.

EDIT - And this goes back to my post yesterday evening. Here we have a situation where the health agency is giving the open and honest communication that is being asked for, and it's immediately being misinterpreted/misrepresented by others (in such a condescending and aggressive way, which seems to be the norm for some reason) who seem to be pushing their own agenda. Open and honest communication needs to happen on all sides, it can't just be demanded from one side.