SA Footy

Jimmy_041 wrote:And remember: this is an "epidemic of the unvaccinated" It just so happens a lot of "vaccinated" people are getting it as well. And what's the definition of "vaccinated"? How many shots now constitutes "vaccinated"?

A lot of vaccinated folks are getting it. It's what happens next that demonstrates the merits of being vaccinated.

Periodic reminder of vaxxed v unvaxxed ICU admissions: currently in NSW, you are 13 times more likely to be admitted to ICU with COVID-19 if you're not vaccinated (2 jabs):

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproj ... tions-rise

RB wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:2. Current information shows that the risks outweigh the safety factor (ie) billions of doses have been administered now. I asked them what could the long term damage be to our immune system. All four said they dont know.

This seems contradictory to me. Current info apparently shows that risks outweigh side effects - and yet they can't tell you what those risks are?
Because they are only considering the short term effects (ie) the effects from the past 12 or so months since they began using these vaccines & when I say "vaccines" I mean; types of vaccines. That's the narrative - "we've innoculated a billion people and the side effects are minimal" They cant consider the long term effects because there have not been the usual long term clinical trials. Thats exactly my point

Anyway, once again, I think it's on you to provide some evidence as to why your mates are correct, and the vast majority of virologists, doctors, public health authorities etc. throughout the free world (not to mention beyond) are wrong. Please show me the evidence where the "vast majority" say that there are no, or acceptable, long term effects. I'll wait for as long as you want.
And I admit it is difficult to get alternative information from qualified people. But that's because they are being censored. Just ask Nickolai Petrovsky. Here's another one: https://sciencewithdrdoug.com/blog/

Why do Nicola, Marshall, Scomo, Biden, Bojo, heck even Trump, want to kill us all? They don't want to kill us. They are only interested in how to fix the immediate problem. The long term effects (damage) is merely a risk they are prepared to take

Meanwhile, the pile of bodies is now five and a half million high. And continue to pile up despite the "vaccine". Unfortunately, their "fully protected" narrative is proving wrong as the "vaccinated" are still getting it. To say that you have less chance of getting it or passing it on is not measurable and they have toned down that claim.
I hope I'm wrong but is the damage to people's immune system going to be the cause of the next wave of illness?
Not saying your mates are definitely wrong, but anyone looking at this objectively can see where the weight of evidence lies. What evidence? 12 months? Exactly my point

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I will have one of the traditional vaccines once they have been approved. Hopefully the government will be forced into getting them properly checked and approved by people like me who wont be coerced into having something that's never been properly checked

RB wrote:Periodic reminder of vaxxed v unvaxxed ICU admissions: currently in NSW, you are 13 times more likely to be admitted to ICU with COVID-19 if you're not vaccinated (2 jabs)

I would still like to see some stats around the underlying health of those in ICU.

Round numbers, hard to give exacts when the stats aren't released, but lets estimate a few things...

90% double vaxxed, 10% unjabbed.

Of those 10%, lets split it 1/3 health reasons they can't get jabbed (ie: recent cancer treatments, existing heart conditions, etc), 1/3 anti-vaxxer, 1/3 lazy.

Lets focus on that 3.3% who have underlying health issues.

Before they were 3.3% out of the entire population. Now they are 3.3 out of 10 in the unvaxxed category, or 33%. A ten fold increase.

Now lets say of those who end up in ICU from catching covid, what are the odds you're more likely to end up in ICU if you had an underlying health issue? I'd suggest fairly bloody good, but who actually knows given they don't give us any stats around it.

Yes unvaxxed people are overrepresented in ICU, but is that cause covid has a greater impact on the unvaxxed? Or is it because those with underlying heath issues are overrepresented in the portion of the population that is unvaxxed?

I don't know the answer, but I'm not keen to blindly trust the politicians given their recent form...

June: Get jabbed, it gives you 100% protection.
August: Ok, not 100, but still Get Jabbed, it gives you 85% protection.
October: ok lets not quote figures anymore, it might stop you catching it.
November: ok you can still catch it, Get jabbed anyway, it might stop you spreading it.
December: Sorry, its wearing off, get jabbed several more times.
January: Ok you still catch and spread it at the same rate as the unvaxxed, but still, Get jabbed, it reduces hospital visits.

What's next: Get jabbed, you'll still die, but at least you go to heaven?

They told us it stopped you catching it, it didn't.
They told us it stopped you spreading it, it didn't.
They told us it keeps you out of ICU, does it?

Their constant changing of message means I don't trust them anymore, and when I can formulate an hypothesis that the overrepresentation of unvaxxed in ICU might be reflective of the fact that there is an overrepresentation of people with underlying health issues in the unvaxxed portion of society, then Ill continue to question if the vax does what they are telling us it does.

Trader wrote:

RB wrote:Periodic reminder of vaxxed v unvaxxed ICU admissions: currently in NSW, you are 13 times more likely to be admitted to ICU with COVID-19 if you're not vaccinated (2 jabs)

I would still like to see some stats around the underlying health of those in ICU.

Round numbers, hard to give exacts when the stats aren't released, but lets estimate a few things...

90% double vaxxed, 10% unjabbed.

Of those 10%, lets split it 1/3 health reasons they can't get jabbed (ie: recent cancer treatments, existing heart conditions, etc), 1/3 anti-vaxxer, 1/3 lazy.

Lets focus on that 3.3% who have underlying health issues.

Before they were 3.3% out of the entire population. Now they are 3.3 out of 10 in the unvaxxed category, or 33%. A ten fold increase.

Now lets say of those who end up in ICU from catching covid, what are the odds you're more likely to end up in ICU if you had an underlying health issue? I'd suggest fairly bloody good, but who actually knows given they don't give us any stats around it.

Yes unvaxxed people are overrepresented in ICU, but is that cause covid has a greater impact on the unvaxxed? Or is it because those with underlying heath issues are overrepresented in the portion of the population that is unvaxxed?

I don't know the answer, but I'm not keen to blindly trust the politicians given their recent form...

June: Get jabbed, it gives you 100% protection.
August: Ok, not 100, but still Get Jabbed, it gives you 85% protection.
October: ok lets not quote figures anymore, it might stop you catching it.
November: ok you can still catch it, Get jabbed anyway, it might stop you spreading it.
December: Sorry, its wearing off, get jabbed several more times.
January: Ok you still catch and spread it at the same rate as the unvaxxed, but still, Get jabbed, it reduces hospital visits.

What's next: Get jabbed, you'll still die, but at least you go to heaven?

They told us it stopped you catching it, it didn't.
They told us it stopped you spreading it, it didn't.
They told us it keeps you out of ICU, does it?

Their constant changing of message means I don't trust them anymore, and when I can formulate an hypothesis that the overrepresentation of unvaxxed in ICU might be reflective of the fact that there is an overrepresentation of people with underlying health issues in the unvaxxed portion of society, then Ill continue to question if the vax does what they are telling us it does.

@DOC?

Most known vaccines have worked in the past.
Hopefully the current batches will as well

mal wrote:Most known vaccines have worked in the past.
Hopefully the current batches will as well

Actually MAL all vaccines have worked.

Some at or close to 100% (smallpox) and others that are not as effective, such as the current Covid vaccines. Not as effective does not mean does not work. It does mean that your body has an increased ability to fight the disease, be it a viral or a bacterial borne disease That means that they have increased the bodies ability to fight the relevant disease by stimulating the production of anti-bodies.

In a percentage of cases, this is still not enough to stop the body acquiring the disease and in a smaller percentage again, not enough to stop the disease from killing.

I just can't help but laugh at the simpletons who say shit like "oh but they said it stopped 95%" transmission or whatever

Hello morons, viruses mutate, you aren't dealing with the Alpha variant anymore.

The current vaccines were not designed for the Omicron variation, they aren't as effective on Omicron compared to previous strains, WHAT A SURPRISE

not ******* rocket science

Armchair expert wrote:I just can't help but laugh at the simpletons who say shit like "oh but they said it stopped 95%" transmission or whatever

Hello morons, viruses mutate, you aren't dealing with the Alpha variant anymore.

The current vaccines were not designed for the Omicron variation, they aren't as effective on Omicron compared to previous strains, WHAT A SURPRISE

not ******* rocket science

Nailed it.

You only have to look at the Worldometer website (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) to see that the deaths are reducing even though infection rates are increasing, especially with the new variant. Which obviously means the vaccine is working.

mal wrote:Most known vaccines have worked in the past.
Hopefully the current batches will as well

I bet GargeMAL could've come up with a potion.

Armchair expert wrote:I just can't help but laugh at the simpletons who say shit like "oh but they said it stopped 95%" transmission or whatever

Hello morons, viruses mutate, you aren't dealing with the Alpha variant anymore.

The current vaccines were not designed for the Omicron variation, they aren't as effective on Omicron compared to previous strains, WHAT A SURPRISE

not ******* rocket science

So if the vaccine isn't suitable for omicron, why are we required to take it?

Smashed Crab wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:I just can't help but laugh at the simpletons who say shit like "oh but they said it stopped 95%" transmission or whatever

Hello morons, viruses mutate, you aren't dealing with the Alpha variant anymore.

The current vaccines were not designed for the Omicron variation, they aren't as effective on Omicron compared to previous strains, WHAT A SURPRISE

not ******* rocket science

Nailed it.

You only have to look at the Worldometer website (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) to see that the deaths are reducing even though infection rates are increasing, especially with the new variant. Which obviously means the vaccine is working.

Or it means the new strains aren't as harmful and the vaccine is simply a placebo?

Trader wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:I just can't help but laugh at the simpletons who say shit like "oh but they said it stopped 95%" transmission or whatever

Hello morons, viruses mutate, you aren't dealing with the Alpha variant anymore.

The current vaccines were not designed for the Omicron variation, they aren't as effective on Omicron compared to previous strains, WHAT A SURPRISE

not ******* rocket science

So if the vaccine isn't suitable for omicron, why are we required to take it?

Just coz

Trader wrote:

Smashed Crab wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:I just can't help but laugh at the simpletons who say shit like "oh but they said it stopped 95%" transmission or whatever

Hello morons, viruses mutate, you aren't dealing with the Alpha variant anymore.

The current vaccines were not designed for the Omicron variation, they aren't as effective on Omicron compared to previous strains, WHAT A SURPRISE

not ******* rocket science

Nailed it.

You only have to look at the Worldometer website (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) to see that the deaths are reducing even though infection rates are increasing, especially with the new variant. Which obviously means the vaccine is working.

Or it means the new strains aren't as harmful and the vaccine is simply a placebo?

I think you're probably a glass half empty kind of guy??

Smashed Crab wrote:I think you're probably a glass half empty kind of guy??

The glass is neither half empty or half full, the glass is the wrong size.

Don't get me wrong, I get it.

Scientists want to be able to solve the problem.
Doctors want to be able to heal people.
Politicians want to be able to tell society they are making the right decisions and get voted back in.

And most of all, Society wants hope there is an end to all of this.

But lets be real. We are spending billions and billions of dollars on PCR / RAT testing and pumping vaccines into arms.
People are isolating.
Small businesses are going under.

Our response to the pandemic is having a huge impact on all of us, not to mention our children.
There was one economist that calculated income tax rates will need to be 2.5% higher for the next 47 years to pay off the debt we have run up during this pandemic.
Sure, some people are happy to pay extra tax, but what happens when instead of extra tax, its a new hospital that's not built, or a road upgrade that doesn't happen, or schools don't get the funding they need, etc.

Our response to the pandemic is having generational impacts.

I think it's fair to be asking questions as to if our response is appropriate and effective.

Sure, make masks a requirement indoors. They don't cost anything and are a minor inconvenience at best.
Sure, make vaccines available for those that want them.
But making them compulsory? I'm not convinced.

NSW have reduced the time for a booster to 3 months after 2nd shot now not 4.
I assume SA will follow in behind shortly
Why 3?
What’s changed to reduce the time?

Just googled WA Omicron
Found this on the ABC News

First paragraph

Two new local cases of COVID-19 have been recorded in Western Australia,
both related to the ongoing Cockburn cluster linked to the Omicron variant and involving massage parlours.

Latest stat has the state at 89.9% double vac. Nearly there and this is all over

Brodlach wrote:Latest stat has the state at 89.9% double vac. Nearly there and this is all over

Dont bet on it

Negative.