I sometimes wonder if some of these journalists have guilty consciences when they write articles for their papers and use terms like "post Covid", "post pandemic" and "it's now official, the pandemic is over"?

Are they being ordered by their bosses to write these untruths?

Or do they honestly believe what they're writing is the truth?

I'd really like to know but I'm pretty sure I'll never find out.

ShellShilo wrote on Oct 21^st, 2022 at 4:22pm:


Hi Shell

To me the flaw in your position is that the numbers you rely on as showing how low the risk is are all based on the results of lock downs masks and distancing. Without this the good numbers would very likely not be so good at all.

Quote:


Lock downs distancing and masks saved a pile of lives - it worked.

ShellShilo wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 9:41pm:


The initial fatality rate of covid was 30%.


regards how mRNA works -
Quote:


https://www.healthline.com/health/how-does-mrna-vaccine-work#about-m-rna-vaccine...

you give no reference  as to the infection rate of     healthcarer.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2022 at 9:31pm:


Hi Dnarever. Not sure what you mean here. Numbers are neither good or bad. They are either true or false. And, what about my points? Are there NOT at least 98% of victims recovering? Is this virus(0.1-1%) less lethal than the measles(1-3%), or Hepatitis A(1.8%)?

My point was that we are making so many assumptions, but not showing any direct causal links. I could say that most people who die from covid-19, are people with facial hair. And, I would be absolutely correct based on the stats. But there is no direct causal link to support my claim. This is just an adjunct conclusions, without showing any causal links.

People are still dying, who have been vaccinated with more than 3 doses. Clearly, there are other factors to consider(age, comorbidities, health of immune system, etc.). It is just not that simple.

You can't simply claim that if there are more deaths today, than there were yesterday, that it must be because of the absence of lockdowns and other medical protocols. Without first excluding all of the other possible variables/causes.

At the end of the day, people are still going to dies from catching the flu, regardless of whatever protocols are in place. With over 2 years of these protocols in place, and still a 300 times more cases. Clearly they are not working. And, the blame game is also unsupported. Lets just let our natural immune system do its job.

And, for those in the high risk group, get vaccinated with LIVE or ATTENUATED real viruses.

Also, I've noticed that you show little interests in the demographics of those dying from this virus, or their list of comorbidities. You show no interest in the fact that this virus is medically treatable. Just like any other virus. Why destroy our own country and people? Just treat the disease. 

ShellShilo wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2022 at 1:36am:


Quote:


If there was no distancing lock downs or masks from the beginning the numbers would look very different, many more would have been infected in the period when the virus was much more deadly. A lot of people would have died, I consider the numbers had this eventuality took place to have been worse. The numbers that you use to justify your case are dependant on distancing masks and lockdowns working to give your the outcome.

Look at how the opening played out in New York or in the original province in China, It was Lock downs distancing and masks that meant that Australia had a very different outcome.

Then look at how it played out in New York and such eastern US transport hub states, They all moved to lock downs distancing and masks which meant that even though they got off to a dreadful start they all finished in front of the republican states that closed down late, improperly  and then re opened early.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2022 at 2:17pm:


Hi. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But NOT your own logic. Although on the simplest of levels, I agree that the more people who are infected, will likely lead to more people dying from the virusie(statistically). But this is NOT a direct causal link is it? This is a false dichotomy(fallacy). No mask, more people die. Wear mask, less people die. Also, no protocols, more people die. More protocols, less people die. All false dichotomies.

My previous posts have shown you the numbers. Whether there are lockdown protocols in place or not, people were still becoming infected, transmitting, and dying from this virus. Even at over 90% of the population vaccinated, you were still seeing deaths from this disease. You were seeing this happening everyday, when lockdowns were in place. So how does your logic support the return of lockdown protocols? 

There is absolutely no way to manage/police distancing. No way to increase the efficacy of masks to 99.999%. Vaccines are NOT designed to prevent anyone becoming infected, transmitting, or even dying from the virus. Although, the mortality and survival rates HAVE been constant throughout the years.

We have seen what happens to this virus when we throw everything at it. NOTHING! And, the effects this has had on our country, we might never recover from. The media has simply run out of excuses. First complying with protocols will protect you. Then wearing masks and being vaccinated will protect you. Then becoming a 95% multi-vaccinated society will protect you from this virus. All lies. The only truth they have said, is that we must learn to live with this flu virus.

The causality variables I've claimed, do not fall into the unknown category. I even listed a few of them(demographics, co-morbidities, health of the immune system, climate/weather, population density, geographics, etc.). These variable also play a role in the statistical outcome. It would be intellectually dishonest to simply ignore/dismiss them all.

Now, when you can logically exclude all the other possible causes(even not having facial hair), then there is no false dichotomy.

Also, it is irrelevant what the stats are in the US(or any other country). The variables affecting its outcomes will be different than the variables here in Australia(density, population, demographics, climate, etc.). The bottom line here is, that people will get sick from this virus. Most will recover, and a small percentage will die from complications. All the rest is media-manufactured hype and disinformation. Do you know how many people recover everyday? How about, what the Covid-19 victims, actually die of? Do you know what the coded categories mean, that are listed on the death certificates? Or, do you never look past the numbers?

In Australia, 80 people die each day from heart disease. 137 people die each day from cancer. 188 die each day from obesity-related illnesses. 54 people die each day from smoking related illnesses. And, the alcohol-induced deaths are the highest level in the last 10 years. Why aren't  these stats being paraded over the media each day?

So, where you can only see cause and effect, I see only what I would expect to see. The effects of media -induced hysterics. A manufactured hype, that has turned a flu virus, less lethal than the measles, into the Ebola plague.

A pandemic only means a disease that pans the globe. It has nothing to do with the severity of the disease. In Australia, it is just an epidemic.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2022 at 2:07pm:



I don't think we can ever know for certain, what would've happened if there were no lockdown protocols from the beginning. My best guess would be, based on the last 70 years of flu/cold viruses, NOT MUCH. A lot of people would get sick and stay home with flu-like symptoms. Most people would go to their pharmacy to manage their symptoms. Some people would need to go to hospitals for more specialized treatment. Some people would need more intensive care. And sadly, some people in the high risk groups would die. 

This is what has happened for 70 years, when there were no lockdown protocols in place. And gee wiz golly gee, this is exactly what we're seeing today. But since Australia jump on the world-attention-seeking bandwagon of who can screw the people the most, our country may take decades to recover. Now they have to get rid of the stockpile of drugs the have. 

I suspect that keeping people indoors(poor ventilation), and out of the sunlight(UVC kills the virus), wasn't a good idea. Coercing, threatening, and forcing people to comply with impossible/immature restrictions was also a no-no. But when you tell people to choose between getting jabbed or losing their job, that was probably the straw that broke the Australian back.   

Forcing people to put something into their body they don't want is the ultimate government overreach.  Australians can put up with a lot. But forcing them to shove a poison into our body is just going too far. My leader is NOT Jim Jones. It was then time to march to protect our basic freedom of choice. Of course the media labeled the marchers as "vaccine-deniers". Because "freedom of choice" marchers would definitely not be good fit.

Finally, I'm not interested in the stats from other countries. They are irrelevant to Australia. Unless you can show a direct causal link(cause, not just outcomes). I also doubt that you would know what the numbers would look like if there were no restriction protocols. You have no idea if the numbers would be higher or lower. Maybe more people would spend more time in the sun. Maybe there would be no difference in the numbers. 

The numbers I've posited are dependent on distancing and masking, NOT WORKING. If they were working we would see a decline in both the number of cases and deaths. We don't see this do we? In fact we see an escalation in the number of cases. So my case IS supported. Right?