The journey that COVID-19 will take us on

[Kickaha]

Saw a sad Tweet from a US nurse last night. She was with a patient struggling to breathe, desperate to know what's wrong.
"You have Covid."
Between gasps, "No, that's false. They are just using that to control us. What's wrong with me?"

At that point she should have just smothered them with a pillow

You miss the point (again) all of the things you mentioned are 100% reversible. A Vaccine is not, Vaccines can and do have side-effects - some of which can be permanent.

If someone decides that actually for a disease that they have above a 98% chance of living from - they'd rather chance it or wait for some long term data - that is their business.

Covid also has side effects and I'm not sure Death which is one of them is reversible either, I'm also unsure why the deniers always use that 98% chance of living and ignore every other know side effect from covid, just because you live doesn't mean you don't have long lasting major side effects

[husaberg]

At that point she should have just smothered them with a pillow



Covid also has side effects and I'm not sure Death which is one of them is reversible either, I'm also unsure why the deniers always use that 98% chance of living and ignore every other know side effect from covid, just because you live doesn't mean you don't have long lasting major side effects

not only that if you can break or slow the virus infection loop it cant infect others.

Because if you can limit the number of people that catch a disease it limits its transmission.
But hey commies mind control magnets spaeballs.....

[FJRider]

You Guess? That's awfully trusting of you.

What has dodgy Party donations .... the leaking of confidential patient information (that information not always showing the patient concerned to be truthful and/or honest in their situation) ... and sending dirty images to anybody ... and then suggesting HE has a trust issue ... ???

If YOU believe half the bullshit YOU have posted on this subject (alone) ... it is really YOU with a trust issue. And gullible with it

See, when the Government wants to revoke certain rights (and as a realist, I can accept that things like Rationing during WW2 was a short-term, necessary infringement for example) - I need a bit more clarity than 'Guess and Factors'

At worst the Government strategy is an educated guess ... based on facts and strategies used overseas that worked (and not applying those that didn't) ... And if they choose to declare a "National Emergency" ... look forward to a few more losses of your freedoms and (previously held) rights.

In such time ... locking up (until the emergency is over) those that spread "Misinformation" ... translated (at worst) at those spreading information contrary to approved Government policy and practice ... is entirely probable. The New Zealand Government has done it in the past

When it comes to the Health Professionals - or more specifically, the ones that act as advisors to the Government (so not your rank and file nurses/doctors) - they have less of a vested interest in My Health and more of a vested interest in making sure their numbers line up on their spreadsheet.

Name ANY one of those advisors ... and ANY proof confirming that

Not only that, but as someone who just so happens to dabble in a fair bit in Data and Data manipulation - I can personally assure you that the mathematical modelling that is published and presented to the Public is done in such a manner as to suit the objectives of the one presenting it.

So you like to bullshit to those YOU may "Advise" ... and you admit it ... and because YOU do it ... THEY are too .. ???

Or to put it another way 'Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics'.

See above ...

And therein lies the difference between My position and yours.

Your position is well known ... you couldn't lie straight in bed. Usually just bitter and twisted

Your position requires you to be right, Mine does not require me to be right.

His position requires him to do the right thing. Being right seems seldom achievable by you.

Because in the position that I put forward, my decisions don't impact you and so if I'm horrendously wrong, I suffer the consequences.

Lucky for HIM ... and completely normal for you.

I'm guessing your nickname isn't LUCKY.

The same is not true for what you advocate.

Wait until you hear what I would advocate for you ...

[F5 Dave]

You left out the bit where hes a ladies front bottom.

[FJRider]

You left out the bit where hes a ladies front bottom.

HAS ... or IS .. ??

[F5 Dave]

I saw I'd missed the apostrophe, but dinner was called.

[TheDemonLord]

Wow, such delusional BS.
Your position is that people shouldn't have to be vaccinated, even those that are doing jobs that involve contact with thousands of other people every week, at least that is what you have claimed in this thread. If you are horrendously wrong then thousands of New Zealanders could die.
My position is that for many jobs and activities people should be required to be vaccinated (they are free to find other jobs and not go to concerts or whatever). My position is very sound, the science backs it well - this vaccine is safe and vaccinating people isn't going to cause problems. If they would have been fine without the vaccine (the most likely way in which I could be wrong) then there is still no harm done.

Frankly, your position is rubbish. Your ideas rely on weird conspiracies.

Let me ask you a direct question: Does the Vaccine work? Yes or No?

If Yes - then your statement of 'Thousands of New Zealanders could die' is False
If No - then your whole 'The Science backs it well' is False

Pick one. You cannot have it both ways.

Then once you've confirmed which side of the fence you want to sit on, then we can cover off the fact that I cannot use my fears to encroach on your rights and vice versa. If you are vaccinated but are still concerned about the risk (which is absolutely fine) - then you can choose not to go to high-risk events.

You cannot use your fears to force others to comply with your mandates.

Also - I have not put forward any conspiracies, quite the contrary. I've put forward a position based on Natural Rights, in opposition to Government overreach. I've not referenced any fringe blogs, the only references I have cited are those from Nature and the Lancet (probably the two most respected Medical Journals) - and that would be on whether or not the Vaccine stops transmission.

Quick aside to point out that since it doesn't stop Transmission - all your arguments about requiring a Vaccine to be safe in people facing industries is based on a false premise, but that is mere point scoring.

This sums up your rationale - you believe it's all a big lie and all around the world the medical scientists are just lying to us. They are all wrong and you are right, we should believe you because . . . reasons?

Well considering I used a quote that is well over 100 years old and has stood the test of time should be the first hint that what I'm implying is nothing new.

But let me to address it seriously - one of the things I do for a Day Job is BI (Business Intelligence) - which involves the manipulation of large amounts of data (in some cases hundreds of millions of rows of Data) and then I do fancy things with them to create pretty, interactive graphs for senior Management in the US.

In short - I'm quite familiar and adept at the Manipulation of Data. Consequently, I'm also quite familiar and adept at understanding how Data is Manipulated.

The problem is one of how Predictive analysis are done and specifically how they are done with small datasets over small periods of time.

Consider a sequence of numbers: 1, 3, 5, 12.

If you do a predictive analysis on that, by the 10th iteration, you could give a middle estimate of 800 (that is because the pattern is approximately N, 2N) - but what if the observed variance over the course of the sequence was +- 40 (that is the highest number is 40, the lowest is 0) - that's a significant margin of error.

You might say that I'm picking numbers at random to prove a point - so allow me to point to the real world model predictions against observed cases:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/d...st..2020-08-01

The above graph shows quite clearly that which I'm talking about. If you expand the time frame, you'll see that as time goes on (and the observed data on which to base the models on grows) the models become more and more accurate, but even the most accurate is still double the amount observed.

When I say 'The scientists are over reacting' - you say that this is just "everyone is wrong and I'm right" - well riddle me this: If the Scientists are so correct, why are their best estimates still double that of reality (that's a pretty big margin of error), in the worst cases they are 4 times larger.

Now let's walk it back a bit to Public Policy - consider this: The Government takes advice from the Scientists who are telling them it will be twice as bad as what it really is (best estimate) - consequently the Government enacts a set of highly restrictive policies...

Not exactly a conspiracy or a leap of Logic.

There is no reason for any one here to believe your nonsense, we all know officials can be corrupt or incompetent, but that doesn't make the vast number of officials worldwide wrong in this instance, and it certainly doesn't make you right.

So if officials can be corrupt or incompetent, how would you know if you just follow what they tell you and guess that they are working in our best interests (your words, not mine)?

Any facts, any evidence at all - it is wasted on you because you believe yourself to be right and anything that goes against what you believe is just lies. You will continue to believe what you want to believe and no amount of evidence will change your mind.

Mere projection - Look at the Data on the vaccine effects on the rates of transmission, look at the data comparing the predicted number of cases vs actual.

[TheDemonLord]

Covid also has side effects and I'm not sure Death which is one of them is reversible either, I'm also unsure why the deniers always use that 98% chance of living and ignore every other know side effect from covid, just because you live doesn't mean you don't have long lasting major side effects

Sure - however my position on this is something like:

When Covid was first announced (back in feb 2020) we heard people talking about Long Time/Life Long side effects, for a disease that had been in the wild for ~1-2 months.

Now, I can accept that they may have looked at things like scarring on the Lungs and compared it to other known diseases and made a reasonable inference that it is likely to be life long and long lasting - but that isn't what was said.

So any claims about Long Lasting - kinda requires there to be observed results over a long period of time.

[TheDemonLord]

You left out the bit where he's a ladies front bottom.

Love you too, Sweetie.


(and I even fixed your missing apostrophe)

[TheDemonLord]

What has dodgy Party donations .... the leaking of confidential patient information (that information not always showing the patient concerned to be truthful and/or honest in their situation) ... and sending dirty images to anybody ... and then suggesting HE has a trust issue ... ???

If YOU believe half the bullshit YOU have posted on this subject (alone) ... it is really YOU with a trust issue. And gullible with it

I'm only suggesting that Governments should be trusted as far as they can be thrown. Their track record (both in this country and globally) isn't exactly glowing.

At worst the Government strategy is an educated guess ... based on facts and strategies used overseas that worked (and not applying those that didn't) ... And if they choose to declare a "National Emergency" ... look forward to a few more losses of your freedoms and (previously held) rights.

I agree it's a guess, but the 'based on facts and strategies used overseas that worked' is a bit more of an issue. I've got my opinion as to which Facts and Strategies where chosen, based on certain ideological sympathies - the fact that we picked the strategy used by China and not Taiwan....

In such time ... locking up (until the emergency is over) those that spread "Misinformation" ... translated (at worst) at those spreading information contrary to approved Government policy and practice ... is entirely probable. The New Zealand Government has done it in the past

Sure, The Government could declare a National Emergency and has done it in the past.
Governments have also been overthrown (violently or otherwise) in the past.

Just a thought.

Remember one of the key pillars that upholds the English style of democracy that we have is that Governance is done with Consent.

Name ANY one of those advisors ... and ANY proof confirming that

I can't name the ones I've personally interacted with, obviously - to answer the second part though - what do the Ministers and the Health leaders talk about? It's always about 'The Numbers'. Or for a different perspective - Google 'DHB Diversity' - and you'll see plenty of results about the various Diversity programs in our Health system - why is that?

Do you care what colour the person treating you is?
Does anyone here care about it?
What about Sexuality? Do you care if your nurse likes sucking dick or licking Vag?

I don't.

And yet to the Hospital Administrators, these things are important because the numbers don't align in their spreadsheet.

So you like to bullshit to those YOU may "Advise" ... and you admit it ... and because YOU do it ... THEY are too .. ???

Actually, quite the opposite - I refuse to massage the Data to make it look more favorable and I've had some very fun meetings with the Board about it. Just like being a competent Mechanic or Builder means you can recognize cowboyism when you see it - and as above - predictions that are out by a factor of 4.

So who is the one bullshitting?

Your position is well known ... you couldn't lie straight in bed. Usually just bitter and twisted

Well, I'm not sure who you are spying on when they sleep, but it certainly isn't me....

His position requires him to do the right thing. Being right seems seldom achievable by you.

The right thing has never been to force other people to comply with your fears.
The right thing has always been to uphold other people's freedoms and rights.

Lucky for HIM ... and completely normal for you.

I'm guessing your nickname isn't LUCKY.

Well - what would you rather - A Government that tries to interfere with your personal life or one that leaves you alone?

Wait until you hear what I would advocate for you ...

I'm fairly certain I could guess with some pretty reasonable accuracy (it's not like you've been shy or coy) - but therein lies the virtue of my position:

You might think I'm a Cunt, fair enough - that's your want and your right And I would not and will not infringe upon that right to soothe my feelings.

That's the difference between my position - I value your freedoms as much as I value my own and I would celebrate the fact that you are free to think of me as you wish and to express that opinion - rather than trying to force you to do something because of my fears/insecurity.

Just like making other people get vaccinated because of your fears.

[nerrrd]

Hmmm that's what I've heard too, apparently in the UK the vaccine isn't preventing transmission as well as they were hoping, actually there's very little difference now.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/progr...or-gary-mclean

So the idea of mandating the vaccine to protect others goes out the window, unless by others you mean the health system, your workmates (if you get too sick to do your job somebody else will have to) or any dependents you might have who would suffer in your absence.

On the plus side, it does mean that a large section of the vaccine refuseniks who aren't basing their decision on any reasonable medical grounds are likely to have their minds changed for them when they catch Covid and have a horrible experience.

And so it goes on (and on and on and on with no end in sight argghhhhh)

[F5 Dave]

"Apparently," no source, doesn't line up with 20x more likely to transmit when un-vaccinated article I posted before. I'd question the source for such a variation. There are also other health measures, compliance and issues with overcrowding which make comparison difficult.

The virus doesn't care, it will find the path of least resistance and work its way though the easiest to infect. Irrespective of political ideology.
Or conspiracy theories.

Side note, I just ordered some from this selection.

https://shop.behemothbrewing.co.nz/c...amn-conspiracy

Check the artwork out. Bit hard on phone might need to search site.

I got some Bill Gates wants to microchip me. And Flat Earth because equally funny.

[george formby]

Pastor of Muppets.... NZ Pale Ale. Genius.

[nerrrd]

"Apparently," no source, doesn't line up with 20x more likely to transmit when un-vaccinated article I posted before. I'd question the source for such a variation. There are also other health measures, compliance and issues with overcrowding which make comparison difficult.

I expect this article refers to the same study that Professor McLean is referring to – in the link I posted before Jim Mora asks him specifically about the stuff article with the 20x figure at around 2 minutes 29 seconds, whereupon he starts talking about the Lancet study and how the vaccine stacks up over there preventing transmission etc. Bear in mind it's all generalised for a radio audience (me!) of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...study-suggests

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...648-4/fulltext

I guess the UK are also a lot further down the vaccine road than we are, so another way it might not be directly comparable (yet).

[pritch]

Hmmm that's what I've heard too, apparently in the UK the vaccine isn't preventing transmission as well as they were hoping, actually there's very little difference now.

Ii's difficult to understand why this is news. When the Pfizer vaccine first came out, one of their scientists said vaccinated people will still need to wear masks. "The vaccine does not sterilise your nostrils." A vaccinated person with non-symptomatic COVID could potentially still be spreading the virus.