Select to expand quotehashbrown said..
The harm caused by the lockdowns to people and businesses in the short and longer term is going to be on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.
I don't know about such a scale, but I agree that the lockdowns and restrictions are already proving to be more damaging that the virus ever has been.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
Ahh, I see the point. The vaccine is making existing cells create a protein, and the protein itself is not injected. I refuse to accept that you are right and I am wrong on principle and instead I think somehow my posting was hacked by the russians! 
Remember 'vaccine = bad' and 'organic potatoes = good' and will cure cancer galucoma and irritable bowel syndrome.
Yeah, its weird isn't it... a virus to kill off people, but you need them as consumers so you can keep making money, and then a vaccine that will also kill, but you still need consumers. Its almost like it doesn't make sense, but I fail to see how a naturally occuring virus could possibly happen and there must be someone else in charge trying to somehow ruin my life. I will check what the other free thinkers on Facebook can tell me.
Ha!
Dude -- chemicals are bad, natural is good. Mm kay.
"naturally occurring"
I'm still not convinced. You've got the checkered-safety history Wuhan Institute of Virology studying live coronavirus *right bloody there*, but sure it's the meat market just across the river that was the problem 
You and I do not need to be convinced if its a naturally occuring virus or not. Its here.
Go back in history and there are pandemics that have occured without the benefit of having places that can create them.
If you agree this is the case, why would we be any better off now? we have a larger population, living in closer proximity to each other, and in closer proximity to some animals. The odds of this creating a virus that crosses species barriers is higher.
We will most likely never know the origin of this virus. Professionals seem to think its unlikely to have a mutation that a human would engineer into it as its something they would not have picked. The Chinese are going to argue it wasn't from there in order to save face, but so what if it did come from there? Its not like they would have created it on purpose. If they did create it and screwed up and released it, so what. Something natural would have/could have happened in the same fashion and the response to it would be no different.
If history did not show pandemics and the results that they caused, it might be a different story, but history does show them. History also hints at disease wiping out a huge number of people and causing a genetic shift because of it.
Why are we so special now that we think it couldn't happen again? We travel further and faster than ever before.
Select to expand quotehashbrown said..
One percent of 330 million is 3.3 million.
A tenth of 3.3 million is 330 000 so the death rate is 0.1 not the 2 percent claimed by somebody here.
Then you factor in that the CDC on their own website admit that 94 percent of the deaths have an average of 2.6 underlying conditions.
So the three hundred thousand figure death count is laughable.
Six percent of three hundred thousand is 18 000 so the death rate is a very small fraction of a single percent - period.
The harm caused by the lockdowns to people and businesses in the short and longer term is going to be on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.
One of the first things you get taught in medical school is that most deaths have multiple underlying conditions. That's obvious for old people who might have cancer and a heart condition and finally succumb to a stroke.
When a young bloke wraps his car round a tree, the proximal cause might be trauma, with underlying causes being suicidal ideation related to social dysfunction and exacerbated by alcohol and amphetamine use. Is that a road death?
So can you take it easy on the idea that some fat slug died with Covid means that s/he shouldn't be counted as a Covid death because, you know, they were already sick.
And, yes, I will sign up to get vaccinated. I do believe that the vast preponderance of doctors are in it because they do want to prevent suffering. It will come as a huge surprise if the injection comes with a single use password to activate the microchip, but if it does, I will select either "remember the password for this site" or "keep me logged in on this device". And I will trust whatever goes on above the cloud to respect that.
PS This is a link to WHO Stats - Weekly epidemiological update - 29 December 2020 (who.int)
80M cases for 1.75M deaths so far. That's 2.2%
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..hashbrown said..
The harm caused by the lockdowns to people and businesses in the short and longer term is going to be on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.
I don't know about such a scale, but I agree that the lockdowns and restrictions are already proving to be more damaging that the virus ever has been.
Look at China. Very harsh lockdown resulted in near elimination of the virus. Economy is growing without much of a drop during the lockdown.
Compare to Europe and USA. Dithering about lockdowns and their economies and medical systems are trashed.
We're in a pretty good place compared to them.
Select to expand quotehashbrown said..
One percent of 330 million is 3.3 million.
A tenth of 3.3 million is 330 000 so the death rate is 0.1 not the 2 percent claimed by somebody here.
Then you factor in that the CDC on their own website admit that 94 percent of the deaths have an average of 2.6 underlying conditions.
So the three hundred thousand figure death count is laughable.
Six percent of three hundred thousand is 18 000 so the death rate is a very small fraction of a single percent - period.
The harm caused by the lockdowns to people and businesses in the short and longer term is going to be on a scale never seen before in the history of the world.
So I'm ok with you being a selfish dick who is unwilling to accept that vaccination is a shared responsibility we undertake for the greater good of the community, and that the small risk to the individual is outweighed by the benefits to society.
But this stuff is what pushes it into the complete arsehole category. 300,000 extra people have died in 2020 than in 2019. Whether they had underlying causes or not, whether other factors were involved or not, an extra 10% died in 2020 compared with the years before covid. That is a big deal no matter how you try to butcher statistics to labour this ridiculous point.
Your argument could apply for any cause of death - lets not waste billions in trying to prevent or treat cancer, as it only kills 450,000 a year, and most of those have comorbidities anyway, so the death rate is a very small fraction of a single percent.
Both lockdowns and vaccination require individual sacrifices in order to protect those who need it most - the elderly, the immune suppressed and those who are already sick. That you are unwilling to consider either and discouraging others to do so as well speaks to your character.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Look at China. Very harsh lockdown resulted in near elimination of the virus. Economy is growing without much of a drop during the lockdown.
Compare to Europe and USA. Dithering about lockdowns and their economies and medical systems are trashed.
We're in a pretty good place compared to them.
I agree with you in that China is now back, with their economy doing well. The advantage a society like that has is that the government has almost complete control. This is something that is impossible to compete with.
"Back to work". "you must stay in inside" - all commands that people here would not respond well to.
Vietnam has something similar, which allows a great response to the virus. Which then allows a quick recovery from the lockdown.
Here, people complain that a 3 day lockdown has ruined their lives.
Craig Kelly, Liberal member for Hughes, is posting regular updates on Spacebook about Ivermectin developments.
I'd never heard of him until yesterday.
He's a climate change denier apparently. This may mean that you will have to ignore everything he posts which appears to be pretty much a standard rationale among some of the sillier folk in here.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I agree with you in that China is now back, with their economy doing well. The advantage a society like that has is that the government has almost complete control. This is something that is impossible to compete with.
"Back to work". "you must stay in inside" - all commands that people here would not respond well to.
Vietnam has something similar, which allows a great response to the virus. Which then allows a quick recovery from the lockdown.
Here, people complain that a 3 day lockdown has ruined their lives.
It's not just that, it's also respect for other members of their society. That's why you've seen Chinese in Sydney wearing masks well before COVID came along...if they had a cold they would wear a mask so as not to spread it. Whereas we've seen plenty of examples here of our fellow white Australian's not giving a rat's about one another.
The "good citizen" aspect of the Chinese has made Taiwan a spectacular success story in dealing with Covid. Same population as Australia, more or less. Same advantage of living on an island, so they can close borders.
They masked up in January. Result, total about 800 cases and 7 corpses.
Taiwan COVID-19: How the country largely escaped the pandemic (news.com.au)
That should be a link to a Murdoch website, but for some reason this browser (Edge) seems not to be copying the link across. Used to work.
www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/how-taiwan-largely-escaped-the-covid19-pandemic/news-story/b2a2fe7545b333b3afbf1c1bf5a83a87
And a bit of googling told me how to fix it
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
It's not like they would have created it on purpose.
But that's precisely what they do at WIV -- and other places. It's like crash-testing cars.
We've still got TB, measles, HIV/AIDS wiping out hordes of people, and lets not forget the flu. We just learn to live with and -- hopefully -- treat these things, and eliminate them where possible.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Look at China. Very harsh lockdown resulted in near elimination of the virus. Economy is growing without much of a drop during the lockdown.
Compare to Europe and USA. Dithering about lockdowns and their economies and medical systems are trashed.
We're in a pretty good place compared to them.
When you run an authoritarian state and can just roll tanks over people who don't toe the line, you can do remarkable things. I also don't put much stock in Chinese data...
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
It's not just that, it's also respect for other members of their society. That's why you've seen Chinese in Sydney wearing masks well before COVID came along...if they had a cold they would wear a mask so as not to spread it. Whereas we've seen plenty of examples here of our fellow white Australian's not giving a rat's about one another.
Mask wearing here is normal in flu season. Doesn't stop them spitting everywhere though...
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Craig Kelly, Liberal member for Hughes, is posting regular updates on Spacebook about Ivermectin developments.
I'd never heard of him until yesterday.
He's a climate change denier apparently. This may mean that you will have to ignore everything he posts which appears to be pretty much a standard rationale among some of the sillier folk in here.
Craig Kelly, huh? Never heard of him even though you used to be in HW as much as anybody here? Don't you pay attention to SKY news? He's regularly on in the evenings.
Whu do we sillier people try to ignore him? Well, what's his expertise? Straight from school into his parents' furniture business which went bankrupt when he was a director. Somehow managed to get a seat in Parliament in a fairly safe electorate and regularly shoots his mouth off.
He knows nothing about medicine.
On the Ivermectin thing, you brought it up in HW months ago. If you Google it, you'll find that it has in vitro antiviral activity. One study showed that it wiped out Covid in a dish. But the problem is that the concentration was many times higher than could be achieved in a human body with a safe dose. Given that it has side effects, only some adventurous clinicians are trialling it with some brave patients.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
It's not like they would have created it on purpose.
But that's precisely what they do at WIV -- and other places. It's like crash-testing cars.
We've still got TB, measles, HIV/AIDS wiping out hordes of people, and lets not forget the flu. We just learn to live with and -- hopefully -- treat these things, and eliminate them where possible.
If they created it or if it was natural, as I said, we probably will never know. Does it make a difference? No.
I am intrigued though that there were stories of intelligence reports that the Wuhan laboratory had a lot less cars, and mobile phone activity all of a sudden late last year. Hinting at a mistake being made and people deserting the facility. If the US monitor these places, and I think we can assume that they do, and they notice less cars and less phones active, it suggests to me that something did happen.
Does it matter? Not really? Clearly the Chinese had a problem in Wuhan and responded to it, so its not like it was directed just at the rest of the world. At worst, it leaked out.
HIV/AIDS wiping out hordes of people? Well, will you accept that its very unlikely to catch and pass on HIV when you are out and about at the supermarket?
Measles? Didn't we get rid of most of that until people started become "more intelligent" on facebook?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..japie said..
Craig Kelly, Liberal member for Hughes, is posting regular updates on Spacebook about Ivermectin developments.
I'd never heard of him until yesterday.
He's a climate change denier apparently. This may mean that you will have to ignore everything he posts which appears to be pretty much a standard rationale among some of the sillier folk in here.
Craig Kelly, huh? Never heard of him even though you used to be in HW as much as anybody here? Don't you pay attention to SKY news? He's regularly on in the evenings.
Whu do we sillier people try to ignore him? Well, what's his expertise? Straight from school into his parents' furniture business which went bankrupt when he was a director. Somehow managed to get a seat in Parliament in a fairly safe electorate and regularly shoots his mouth off.
He knows nothing about medicine.
On the Ivermectin thing, you brought it up in HW months ago. If you Google it, you'll find that it has in vitro antiviral activity. One study showed that it wiped out Covid in a dish. But the problem is that the concentration was many times higher than could be achieved in a human body with a safe dose. Given that it has side effects, only some adventurous clinicians are trialling it with some brave patients.
One Page Summary of the Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19
Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine whose discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, has proven, highly potent, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties in laboratory studies. In the past 4 months, numerous, controlled clinical trials from multiple centers and countries worldwide are reporting consistent, large improvements in COVID-19 patient outcomes when treated with ivermectin. Our comprehensive scientific review of these referenced trials can be found on the Open Science Foundation pre-print server here: osf.io/wx3zn/.
Properties of Ivermectin
1) Ivermectin inhibits the replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and others;
2) Ivermectin has potent anti-inflammatory properties with multiple mechanisms of inhibition;
3) Ivermectin diminishes viral load and protects against organ damage in animal models;
4) Ivermectin prevents transmission of COVID-19 when taken either pre- or post-exposure;
5) Ivermectin hastens recovery and decreases hospitalization and mortality in patients with COVID-19;
6) Ivermectin leads to far lower case-fatality rates in regions with widespread use.
Evidence Base Supporting the Efficacy of Ivermectin in COVID-19 as of December 18, 2020 (RCT's = randomized controlled trials, OCT's = observational controlled trials). Every clinical trial shows a benefit, with RCT's and OCT's reporting the same
direction and magnitude; nearly all are statistically significant.
Controlled trials studying the prevention of COVID-19 (7 trials completed)
? 4 RCT's with large statistically significant reductions in transmission rates, a total of 851 patients
? 3 OCT's with large statistically significant reductions in transmission rates, a total of 1,688 patients Controlled trials in the early, outpatient treatment of COVID-19 (5 trials completed)
? 2 RCT's with large, significant reductions in deterioration/ hospitalization, a total of 1,085 patients
? 2 RCT's with significant decreases in viral load, days of anosmia, cough, or time to recovery Controlled trials in late phase treatment of the hospitalized patients (12 trials completed)
? 2 RCT's with large, significant reductions in mortality, a total of 720 patients
? 3 OCT's with large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, a total of 1,688 patients
Number of Studies and Patients Among the Existing Clinical Trials of Ivermectin in COVID-19
? 24 trials, including a total of 7,825 patients have been completed using well-matched control groups
? 15 trials, including over 3,000 patients, are prospective, randomized, controlled studies
? 12 of the 24 trials have been published in peer-reviewed journals, 3,926 patients, remainder in pre-print
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance - Recommendation on Ivermectin in COVID-19
Even restricting analysis to just the 15 randomized controlled trials (totaling over 3,000 patients), the majority report a statisti- cally significant reduction in transmission or disease progression or mortality. Further, a meta-analysis recently performed by an independent research consortium calculated the chances that ivermectin is ineffective in COVID-19 to be 1 in 67 million.1
The FLCCC Alliance, based on the totality of the existing evidence, supports an A-I recommendation (NIH rating scheme; strong level, high quality evidence) for the use of ivermectin in both the prophylaxis and treatment of all phases of COVID-19.
Furthermore, we encourage all regulatory agencies to review our manuscript detailing these studies above as well as the multiple population-wide "natural experiments" that occurred in numerous cities and regions after the initiation of ivermectin distribution programs.2 The widespread use of ivermectin resulted in a significant reduction in cases and m-ortality rates that approached pre-pandemic levels in these areas. As evidenced by what occurred in these regions, ivermectin is clearly an essential and vital treatment component in achieving control of the pandemic.
1 ivmmeta.com
2 Kory P, Meduri GU, Iglesias J, Varon J et al. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and
Treatment of COVID-19. Open Science Foundation. osf.io/wx3zn/
For more information about the FLCCC Alliance, the I-Mask+ Prophylaxis & Early Outpatient Treatment
Protocol for COVID-19 and the MATH+ Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19, please visit w
There are various reports on the alternate media that 50 to 60 percent of medics in hospitals in different parts of the world are refusing to take it. The mainstream are failing to mention this.....
I guess medics are a bunch of 'CT nutters' as well.
Here we go. Another "Hydroxychloroquine".
If the proof is there, and studies are done and can be repeated, people will use it.
Looking at it the other way, would you trust a doctor that experimented on your life and death on something he has a gut-feel might help? That's not what doctors generally do.
Select to expand quotehashbrown said..
There are various reports on the alternate media that 50 to 60 percent of medics in hospitals in different parts of the world are refusing to take it. The mainstream are failing to mention this.....
I guess medics are a bunch of 'CT nutters' as well.
So where are these various reports you speak about?
This why people do not take nutters seriously
Always starts with various reports,I heard,they said and nothing ever of this is fact and here is the proof...then the you tube links come out from a snake oil salesmen
Yeh nutters hold so much credibility
mainstream media sights "various reports" and "expert opinion" all the time without presenting source, and the mouth breathing tv heads lap it up.
in fact, the reason governing bodies are so against alternative news sources and view points is because, in their own words "they don't adhere to policy", meaning, they can't control the narrative.
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
mainstream media sights "various reports" and "expert opinion" all the time without presenting source, and the mouth breathing tv heads lap it up.
in fact, the reason governing bodies are so against alternative news sources and view points is because, in their own words "they don't adhere to policy", meaning, they can't control the narrative.
Where did I mention mainstream media ?
So the narrative being stopped is fake news ? That has to be a good thing,if applied to all news sources
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Here we go. Another "Hydroxychloroquine".
If the proof is there, and studies are done and can be repeated, people will use it.
Looking at it the other way, would you trust a doctor that experimented on your life and death on something he has a gut-feel might help? That's not what doctors generally do.
The proof is there. Studies have been done.
They have been repeated.
People won't use it because it is prohibited.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
...People won't use it because it is prohibited.
Cannabis is prohibited. Doesn't stop people using it.
Various reports and expert opinion has shown that drugs being prohibited is the reason why certain people take them.
I heard that if they weren't prohibited these people would claim they are dangerous big-pharma drugs, bribed through regulatory approval processes and should not be taken.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..japie said..
...People won't use it because it is prohibited.
Cannabis is prohibited. Doesn't stop people using it.
Various reports and expert opinion has shown that drugs being prohibited is the reason why certain people take them.
I heard that if they weren't prohibited these people would claim they are dangerous big-pharma drugs, bribed through regulatory approval processes and should not be taken.
Very funny!
Perhaps an underground Ivermectin trade will kick off. Norco has heaps. Cockys will get a bit pissed off if the supply dries up and their livestock all cark it.
Then the country will starve. All but the vegetarians and vegans. Global warming will collapse and we will all be wearing thermals in December.
Kite shops will switch to selling ice skates and skiing gear.
Select to expand quotejapie said..FormulaNova said..
Here we go. Another "Hydroxychloroquine".
If the proof is there, and studies are done and can be repeated, people will use it.
Looking at it the other way, would you trust a doctor that experimented on your life and death on something he has a gut-feel might help? That's not what doctors generally do.
The proof is there. Studies have been done.
They have been repeated.
People won't use it because it is prohibited.
There are peer reviewed studies on this already? I am sure there are peer reviewed on Ivermectin since it has been around since the 70s, but its use targetting Covid19?
If so, people will use it.
Prohibited? Surely if its prohibited there would be a reason? I got a dose of it about a year ago, so its not like GPs can't prescribe it.
I think Mr Milk brought this up before, when this was mentioned before it seemed to be effective in a test tube at doses way higher than you would get in the human body.
If you are a doctor treating someone, do you treat them with conventional therapy and approved treatments or do you go rogue and try something you feel will work, but cannot justify? Not if you want to keep your license. What if that person dies on your test?
I will go out on a limb here and say 'its not been through trials for treatment against Covid in humans, which is why its not an approved treatment'.
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
mainstream media sights "various reports" and "expert opinion" all the time without presenting source, and the mouth breathing tv heads lap it up.
in fact, the reason governing bodies are so against alternative news sources and view points is because, in their own words "they don't adhere to policy", meaning, they can't control the narrative.
I think people are against (or in my case just don't care about) alternate news sources is that they are not generally viewed by a lot of people, so their standard of reporting may not be as critical. If not many people view it, it doesn't get reviewed by the audience. Worse, the people that do view it self-select and seek them out as they already have an agenda they want. Imagine how badly an 'alternative media source' does if it says 'yeah, the government got it 100% right, we agree with them and think you should follow their advice'. All the 'alternative media peeps' would stop looking at it as it obviously has been gotten to by the government.
Imagine if Channel 9 put up a story about dinosaurs being from Mars and that we are really a race of reptile decendents? It would be howled down and laughed at. Do the same on an alternative news site and you would have people writing it up on facebook as fact.
The only things the mainstream media seem to cite are official trials and results. Does that make them bad?
What's wrong with mouth breathing!
i guarantee you that if channel 9 reported that dinosaurs were from Mars and that their proof was someone in a lab coat, from the ponds institute pointing to an artists rendition, that everyone whose stupid enough to be watching channel 9 in the first place, would be at work, down the pub, on the dole que the next day talking about how dinosaurs are from Mars
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said..
i guarantee you that if channel 9 reported that dinosaurs were from Mars and that their proof was someone in a lab coat, from the ponds institute pointing to an artists rendition, that everyone whose stupid enough to be watching channel 9 in the first place, would be at work, down the pub, on the dole que the next day talking about how dinosaurs are from Mars
... but there would be enough intelligent people that saw it that would create a response to Channel Nine and they would be forced to defend their reports with fact or retract it publicly.
Try doing that on an alternate news site. "It's our site, you just want to follow the official narrative, now bugger off".
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
we are really a race of reptile decendents
What's wrong with mouth breathing!
Is that just you who is a lizard overlord? Or all windsurfers?
Nice of you to take such a liberal attitude to oral ventilation ... or is that rhetorical, meant saecastically?
I guarantee you that if Pete Evans or David Icke reported that dinosaurs were from Mars and that their proof was someone in a lab coat, from some random made-up institute pointing to an artists rendition, that everyone whose stupid enough to be watching them in the first place, would be at work, down the pub, on the dole queue / on facebook the next day talking about how dinosaurs are from Mars and its a giant conspiracy
