Governments worldwide were dealing with an unprecedented scenario and most dealt with the issue as best they could based on the data available at the time. If there was any overreach, then it certainly wasn’t out of recklessness or stupidity, as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

Whether it be because of antivax beliefs or misguided beliefs about fReeDoMs, anyone who suffered adverse consequences as result of refusing to be vaccinated has no one but themselves and their own selfishness to blame. I hadn’t heard of “granny killers” before, but “batshit crazy” was certainly apt.

Mikkelsen’s claim that "yesterday's conspiracy theories are now widely accepted as today's facts" is wrong. The vaccines were never sold as a magic bullet. It was made clear from the start that they would reduce the severity, reduce transmission, prevent hospitalisations, and save lives - and that’s exactly what they did. The notion that vaccines are somehow ineffective because they don’t stop transmission entirely is a strawman argument.

Yes, immunity wanes over time boosters are required. This isn't some grand revelation; it’s just the nature of vaccines, as we see with the flu shot every year. The important part, which Mikkelsen glosses over, is that even with waning immunity, vaccines still drastically reduce the risk of severe illness. You might catch covid, but you’re far less likely to end up in the ICU or on a ventilator.

As for the “serious side effects,” the overwhelming data shows that adverse reactions are rare and typically mild compared to the risks posed by the virus itself. Claiming that these side effects are being “widely accepted” as some kind of widespread, underreported crisis is a lie. The medical and scientific community has remained transparent every step of the way.

The comparison to Thalidomide is absurd, too. Thalidomide was rushed to out without proper testing.

You never fail to disappoint John Dasch with all your claims trashed by reality and numerous studies, but do keep up your boosters! (In my own extended family among those post vaccination we have had a woman with no heart problem history die of a sudden heart attack, another was told she must have the vaccines because she is immuno- compromised and is now practically crippled in constant pain and confined to home after two vaccines. Her doctors tell her she shouldn't have any more vaccines or her condition will worsen. Another man who has had multiple boosters ( five or six) has suffered fibromyalgia rheumatic and a cancerous lung nodule ... excess deaths , turbo cancers and sudden heart attacks among the young, fit and healthy are a world-wide reality but of course it's just coincidental. Nothing to see here.... (PS if you want evidence seek a copy of testimony to Senator Robert's Senate inquiry).

I suspect the author is not a doctor or has a lot of medical knowhow. But what would he have done that would have made the whole situation better??
People in glass houses.........

Well ateday, I was a qualified pharmacy dispenser before diverting to journalism. What would I have done better? No mandates, no lockdowns, no coercion, no police using excess force on peaceful protesters, no border segregation, no lies about the untested vaccine being "Perfectly safe and effective - just for starters.
Meanwhile here's another recent take on fudged vaccine death numbers:
https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/official-covid-vaccine-death-count
"...As at 22 August 2024, there are 1,038 deaths and 140,899 adverse events reported to the DAEN in relation to Covid vaccines since the rollout began, in February 2021.

The under reporting factor (URF) for predominantly passive surveillance systems such as the DAEN (and affiliated state and territory systems) is estimated in the academic literature (here, here and here) to be between 10-100 fold. This means that the actual rate of deaths after Covid vaccination in Australia may be between 10,000 - 100,000 (given that Australia experienced between 30,000-40,000 cumulative excess deaths between 2021-2023, the upper bound is unlikely). The TGA has not produced its own estimate of the URF for the Covid vaccine program.

28% of deaths reported to the DAEN after Covid vaccination occurred within one week of the shot, and the majority occurred within six weeks, TGA figures show...."

I would welcome a Royal Commission into Australia’s handling of the COVID pandemic, not least because it might help to dispel the type of nonsense on display in this article.

The author says, “We know the vaccines don't prevent contraction or transmission, any benefit wanes after a few months and there are potential serious side effects.” I don’t recall anyone claiming that the vaccines have no adverse effects, or that they provide permanent immunity, or that they guarantee that people will not catch or pass on COVID. The vaccines reduce your chance of catching COVID and reduce the severity of symptoms if you do get it. They may also make it less likely that you will transmit the disease if infected. For most adults, the risks of getting vaccinated are far lower than the risks of not getting vaccinated. That’s why vaccines were strongly advocated by governments and health experts around the world. It’s a bit like using seatbelts – there are rare reports of people being injured or even killed because they were wearing one, but on balance you are much better off doing so.

A Royal Commission could look into what worked and what didn’t so we are better prepared for the next pandemic. It could look into the costs of lockdowns and whether, for example, the Swedish response was better or worse than the more interventionist approaches of most developed countries. It could look into the other adverse effects of lockdowns – for example, on metal health. It could look into how we ensure that supply chains, including for vaccines, function in future crises.

Here in WA, the government’s decision to close the borders probably saved hundreds of lives and allowed us to live almost normal lives in our COVID-free bubble until vaccines became available. Premier Mark McGowan was rewarded by a grateful public with a huge election landslide in 2021. The experience of Victorians, in contrast, was horrible. A dispassionate and objective evaluation of these experiences is surely worthwhile, though it is unlikely to persuade the conspiracy theorists that they are wrong.

Whether we forget or not, we won't be able to talk about it anymore if Albanese gets his censorship Bill through. You might end up in a gulag, John. You could have the likes of Mr. Daysh and ‘ateday’ as guards or re-educators. Probably guards: not smart enough for the other role.

John Daysh.

One of your comments: "The comparison to Thalidomide is absurd, too. Thalidomide was rushed to out without proper testing."

What is it that you have against Mikko2? You seem obsessed.
Covid 19 VACCINATIONS were RUSHED if anything was rushed!
Did you go and get yours like a good little Commo lamb?
This was the most disgusting plan by all in the top eschalons to lock us all down like criminals.
Premiers and senior so called Medical Officers acted like gestapos.
Our senior MO had hardly ever seen the inside of an actual clinic from when she graduated as a Medical officer in Sydney. She couldn't handle CLINIC SITUATIONS and moved to Queensland to work in Health Administration. Talk about experts.
Lucky I live where I live as I didn't stay locked up. The most stupid thing was having to wear a mask while DRIVING ALONE IN A CAR. Fair dinkum.
Anyway, Mikko2 does not appear to be any fool in my eyes from what he writes and I feel what you write shows more about you and where you belong than anything that is written by Mikko2.

What is so wrong with John Daysh's opening post ? I think he hit the nail on the head.

Well done and well said Mr Mikkelsen.

As the distance in time increases and the need to defend the indefensible through political necessity recedes, more and more information and evidence comes to light. But its fragmentary and only accessible to those of us who have followed the issue from the outset. For that reason, a Royal Commission is never going to happen.

It is not in the interests of the ruling class, the politicians or the drug industry to have all the evidence aired and compiled in one place. It won't happen until all the culprits have moved on.

The lockdowns were a disaster on so many levels and the so-called vaccines were only mildly effective at stopping the spread of the disease although they were good at reducing the symptoms of those who were not in the most threatened group anyway. Still the drug industry made mega-billions from these drugs and politicians went along for the ride because they needed to be seen to be doing 'sumfing'.

Covid19, or more exactly the reaction by the rulers to it, resulted in the greatest transfer of wealth for the lower to the upper classes seen since the days of the late Roman Republic. And no one wants that bought to the for.

The lockdowns were a disaster on so many levels
mhaze,
After a few more Covids remarks such as the one above will be seen as incredulously poor-visioned !

A report on evidence to the Senate Long Covid inquiry from former AMA president, MP and media personality Dr Kerryn Phelps (one of a number of doctors who claim they have been censored)

Dr Kerryn Phelps has broken her silence about a “devastating” Covid vaccine injury, slamming regulators for “censoring” public discussion with “threats” to doctors.

Former federal MP Dr Kerryn Phelps has revealed she and her wife both suffered serious and ongoing injures from Covid vaccines, while suggesting the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators.

In an explosive submission to Parliament’s Long Covid inquiry, the former Australian Medical Association (AMA) president has broken her silence about the “devastating” experience — emerging as the most prominent public health figure in the country to speak up about the taboo subject.

“This is an issue that I have witnessed first-hand with my wife who suffered a severe neurological reaction to her first Pfizer vaccine within minutes, including burning face and gums, paraesethesiae, and numb hands and feet, while under observation by myself, another doctor and a registered nurse at the time of immunisation,” the 65-year-old said.

“I continue to observe the devastating effects a year-and-a-half later with the addition of fatigue and additional neurological symptoms including nerve pains, altered sense of smell, visual disturbance and musculoskeletal inflammation. The diagnosis and causation has been confirmed by several specialists who have told me that they have seen ‘a lot’ of patients in a similar situation....”
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/dr-kerryn-phelps-reveals-devastating-covid-vaccine-injury-says-doctors-have-been-censored/news-story/0c1fa02818c99a5ff65f5bf852a382cf

mhaze,

You’ve managed to neatly package every cliche about "big pharma" and "the ruling class" into a tidy little box of conspiratorial thinking.

The idea that the "culprits" will get away with it simply because a Royal Commission hasn’t been called is pure projection. Let’s not pretend that there’s some secret trove of evidence hiding in plain sight that only the most enlightened, like yourself, have access to. The reality is far simpler: the evidence for vaccine efficacy and the necessity of lockdowns is out there in the open, and it’s not the smoking gun you want it to be.

Lockdowns were not a perfect solution, and no one is claiming otherwise. But the assertion that they were a “disaster on so many levels” misses the point that without them, we could’ve been staring down the barrel of a healthcare collapse. It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback the decisions made in the middle of a crisis, but what’s conveniently ignored is that these measures saved lives, especially in countries that acted swiftly.

Calling the vaccines “only mildly effective at stopping the spread” overlooks the fact that they were never solely about halting transmission - they were about preventing severe illness and death. And they did that job remarkably well, particularly before the more transmissible variants arrived.

And the trope of the “greatest transfer of wealth” during the pandemic? The systemic inequalities that existed long before covid only became more visible during the pandemic. Blaming it on the virus or the vaccines ignores the full picture of economic inequality, which is a result of long-standing policies that favoured the wealthy. Covid didn't create that dynamic - it merely exposed it. But it’s always easier to blame the current crisis on some shadowy elite rather than examine the larger forces at play.

You can frame it as a grand conspiracy all you like, but the facts remain: vaccines saved lives, lockdowns bought time, and the real issue isn’t that a Royal Commission won’t happen - it’s that you’ve already decided, in advance, that any official inquiry would be part of the cover-up.

Convenient.

Another of John Daysh and others' lies exposed (from the Courier Mail):

Yes they claimed the vaccines would prevent transmission -
"... setting aside what it says in the fine print, the public was told repeatedly, for months, both explicitly and implicitly, that the vaccines would prevent transmission.

They’re all on tape saying it.

US President Joe Biden, for example, said in July 2021 that “you’re not going to get Covid if you have these vaccinations”.

White House chief medical adviser Dr Anthony Fauci said in May 2021 that vaccinated people become “dead ends” for the virus.

CDC director Rochelle Walensky said in March 2021 that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick”.
In Australia, politicians and health officials held millions of people hostage for months, lecturing and threatening them to get vaccinated to regain their “freedoms”.

The vaccines were the “way out” of the pandemic, they were not to just to protect ourselves but to “protect others”, they would “stop the spread”, and not getting vaccinated was “selfish”.

Vaccine passports, the “vaccinated economy”, were necessary so people who “did the right thing” would feel “safe” knowing they weren’t “mixing” with the unvaccinated, who were a “risk to the community”.

By late 2021 and early 2022, as Omicron became dominant and it was clear vaccinated people were still catching and spreading the virus, the messaging changed...."

https://www.couriermail.com.au/technology/science/yes-they-claimed-the-vaccines-would-prevent-transmission/news-story/a176eb002c29e603fc29ef9fe0b33b18

Mikko2,

"Another"? How did we get to "another lie" when there wasn't a previous lie?

Yes, some officials said vaccines would stop transmission early on, but they weren’t lying, they were working with the data they had at the time. In the beginning of the whole saga, the evidence suggested vaccines would slow down the spread (especially against earlier strains like Delta.) Science is based on the best information available at any given moment, and things change as more data comes in. That's how it works.

None of this is indicative of conspiracy or coverup.

Biden, Fauci, and Walensky weren’t deliberately misleading people. They were giving advice based on what the studies were showing then. Fast forward to Omicron, and yeah, vaccinated people were still catching and spreading covid, but that doesn't turn the early messaging into some big conspiracy. What happened was the virus mutated - welcome to the world of infectious diseases. We had to adapt, and so did the messaging.

The vaccines did what they were supposed to do: they kept people from ending up in hospitals and morgues. Sure, the idea of stopping transmission was part of the early pitch, but the bigger win was always keeping people alive and reducing severe cases. Public health responses evolve, and that’s what happened here.

So, let’s not cherry-pick quotes. The reality is that the vaccines saved countless lives, and just because the messaging had to shift with the emergence of new variants doesn’t mean it was all lies.

Welcome to the reality of dealing with a global crisis in real-time.

"It’s easy to Monday-morning quarterback the decisions made in the middle of a crisis,"

Yes it is. But that's not what happened. Indeed, in these very pages (and elsewhere) I was calling the lockdowns a disaster in the middle of the first quarter (to continue the footy metaphor).

Specifically, on 1 April 2020, in the very midst of the first lockdowns, I was pointing out the data that showed they were unnecessary. But that level of independent thought would be unrecognisable to JD who always ALWAYS follows the government line, no matter what it is.

JD, in his endless attempts to distort the facts in the service of exonerating the errors, tells us that the vaccine wasn't billed as way to stop the transmission of the dreaded wuflu. Yet governments the world over were enforcing vaccine mandates, people were denied entry to all manner of places if unvaccinated and leaders such as Chairman Dan were telling people that the pandemic was a disease of the unvaccinated. History, even recent history, seems to elude JD.

BTW, more people died in Australia from the dreaded wuflu in the year AFTER the introduction of the vaccine than in the year prior to its release on an unexpecting public. Tell me again how it saved lives.

mhaze,

You’re patting yourself on the back for calling lockdowns a disaster back in April 2020. But let’s not pretend that early 2020 was a time of crystal-clear data and obvious solutions. Either way you were wrong.

"aSSeRtIoN!"

No, we when through all that in a past thread.

Governments worldwide were facing an unknown, rapidly spreading virus. Some data suggested alternatives to lockdowns, but the main concern was preventing healthcare systems from collapsing - and rightly so. Erring on the side of caution saved lives. If we followed your advice back in early 2020, we might’ve been looking at an overwhelmed healthcare system, mass deaths, and a public health disaster.

On to vaccines. Yes, governments pushed mandates, and there was messaging around stopping transmission. But the primary purpose of the vaccines was to reduce severe illness and death, and they did that remarkably well.

The transmission angle was based on early data - especially for variants like Delta - when vaccines were shown to reduce spread. When more contagious variants like Omicron emerged, the messaging evolved, as it should in a situation like this. Science adapts to new information, but that doesn’t mean the original claims were lies. Let’s not forget, too, that reducing severe illness and death was always the key goal. The vaccines succeeded in that.

Your jab (no pun intended) about how "more people died in the year after vaccines were introduced" - that’s a gross oversimplification. In 2021 and beyond, we had more transmissible variants circulating, restrictions were lifted, and a much larger portion of the population was exposed to the virus. So, yes, more people died, but it’s a deliberate distortion of the facts to blame that on the vaccines.

Without the vaccines, those numbers could’ve been far worse. The vaccines allowed people to resume things as normal and kept hospitals from being overwhelmed. Raw numbers don’t tell the whole story, especially when you ignore the context as you insist on doing every single time.

So, it seems you’re the only one distorting the facts here, and with your trademark cherry-picking too.

Well maze, let's trust that all the covid vaccine / government doctrine believers will keep up their healthy boosters. Meanwhile here are some comments on a peer-reviewed study about heightened risks of various diseases including serious heart and neurological defects post vaccination among a sample population of 99 million:
Some highlighted increases include a 6.1-fold increase in myocarditis from the second dose of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. Cases of pericarditis had a 6.9-fold increase as a result of the third dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine. There is a 2.5-times greater risk of developing Guillain-Barré syndrome from the AstraZeneca vaccine along with a 3.2-times greater risk of developing blood clots from the same vaccine. There is a 3.8-times greater risk of getting acute disseminated encephalomyelitis from the Moderna vaccine, and a 2.2-fold increase in the AstraZeneca vaccine.
“When choosing to get vaccinated, it is important to weigh the benefits and risks of the vaccine. Information like this makes it easier to make the right choice…”

I agree - "the right choice" should be FREE choice - NOT forceful mandates and coercion!

I was pointing out the data that showed they were unnecessary.
mhaze,
Do you have proof that they were unnecessary ?

"You’re patting yourself on the back for calling lockdowns a disaster back in April 2020. "

On a site like this, you can go back and see what your opinions were over the years. And yes, I'm rather proud of the fact that I very early on recognised that the lockdowns and the whole government approaches to the dreaded wuflu were wrong. Just as I was an early adopter of the view that it was a manufactured virus that escaped the Wuhan lab. And that it was a disease of the elderly. And that kids were effective immune. and ....

So you call me a Monday morning quarter back and when I point out that was wrong you just move on to the next unverified assertion. Its like trying to stop rancid custard pouring through your fingers.

"Well maze, let's trust that all the covid vaccine / government doctrine believers will keep up their healthy boosters."

Yes, as we see with the likes of JD, some will continue to believe whatever the government tells them, irrespective of the facts....which they assiduously work to avoid.

" peer-reviewed study about heightened risks of various diseases including serious heart and neurological defects"

Yep. There are a large number of studies showing post vaccine spikes in all sorts of diseases. There is a largely unexplained rise in excess deaths in Australia and many other nations.

"I agree - "the right choice" should be FREE choice - NOT forceful mandates and coercion!"

If it could be shown that the vaccines stopped transmission, then there was some degree of sanity in the mandates. Which is, of course, why Big Pharma and Big Government pushed the claim that the various vaccines did stop transmission. Get the shot to save granny etc. But it was a lie and many of them knew it was a lie from the outset.

We're discussing abortion elsewhere and the great claim about abortion is the line "My body, my choice". But the same people chanting that were anxious to take away choice in the case of the wuflu. Hypocrites to a man.

mhaze,

We looked at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9129#301593 and you were wrong there.

Were there others where you were actually right?

It certainly wasn’t any conspiracy of yours about the covid being deliberately manufactured. We already covered that one.

Whether Covid was a disease of the elderly or children were “effective immune” depends on what exactly you mean by these, but I suspect you were wrong about those, too, given your track record on… every topic.

//So you call me a Monday morning quarter back and when I point out that was wrong you just move on to the next unverified assertion.//

No, you didn’t point out that it was wrong. Scroll up and take a look. There should be a wheel in between the two main buttons of your mouse that will allow you to do this quickly and easily.

Thank you for at least having the honesty to refer to what I addressed next as an “unverified assertion”, though. There’s been a lot of those from you here. And as soon as they’re discredited, you just pretend nothing was said, and move on to your next attempt to distort facts. Precisely what you accuse me of doing!

Have you ever heard of “projection”?

//There are a large number of studies showing post vaccine spikes in all sorts of diseases.//

This is yet another example of how you cherry-pick. There are risks associated with vaccines, including rare side effects like myocarditis or Guillain-Barre syndrome, but these pale in comparison to the benefits of preventing severe covid cases and deaths.

//There is a largely unexplained rise in excess deaths in Australia and many other nations.//

References?

//We're discussing abortion elsewhere and the great claim about abortion is the line "My body, my choice".//

This is a false equivalence.

Abortion is a personal matter that primarily affects the individual, whereas vaccine mandates were about public health - protecting others from a highly contagious virus. The intent behind mandates wasn’t to control people’s bodies but to reduce the spread of a virus that was overwhelming healthcare systems and causing deaths. The contexts are fundamentally different.

NOT forceful mandates and coercion!"
mhaze,
But it's ok for people to choose spreading the virus by not wearing masks or staying away from others ? Forcing others to have to share space with them ? It's really a two-way street. No-one can prove that the lockdowns didn't work nor that they did ! Just because someone doesn't get sick is no endorsement that they're not spreading to others. Just as some who died did so with Covid & not necessarily because of it but could have quite easily have died because of it.
We'll just have to wait for the next wave to learn more rather than just hysterical guessing for the sake of having something to complain about at everyone else's expense.

Some more recent news from Japan for the true believers (perfectly safe and effective, hey):

"Japan detects more Moderna vaccine contamination -
Japan has suspended the use of some batches of Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine because contamination was spotted.
"Two Japanese regions suspended use of some Moderna Covid-19 shots on Sunday after more cases of contamination were spotted, the local governments said.
"We are suspending the use of Moderna Covid-19 vaccines as foreign substances were spotted" in some of them, authorities in Okinawa said in a statement.

And:
Japan’s health ministry admitted to a second “undeniable” causal relationship between a COVID-19 vaccination and death after a hitherto healthy teenager was found unresponsive following a third inoculation against the novel coronavirus.

According to a paper by a research team from Tokushima University, which conducted a judicial autopsy at the request of Tokushima prefectural police, the girl received the mRNA vaccine manufactured by Pfizer Inc. of the United States last August.

She developed a fever the following day, which subsided in the evening. After going to bed, she awoke temporarily and complained of breathing difficulties. The next day, her family noticed she had stopped breathing.
Forty-five hours after the vaccination, the girl was confirmed dead....
...A total of 2,076 deaths related to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine had been reported to the ministry by April 30, officials said.

JD asserts "and you were wrong there."

Oh well, if you say so. No evidence mind you but in the JD world, him merely ASSERTING something is the best evidence of all.
So very childish.

"Whether Covid was a disease of the elderly or children were “effective immune” depends on what exactly you mean by these, "

What I mean is that if you look at the statistics, virtually no children died and the vast majority of those who did die were elderly. Is that toooooo difficult for you to follow?

"//There is a largely unexplained rise in excess deaths in Australia and many other nations.//

References?"

The Australian Bureau of Statistics. I assume the numbers will go over your head. http://tiny.cc/y0fmzz

I always find it amusing when people whose only form of argument is to assert that what they want to be true, is true, suddenly demanding evidence of others.

" The intent behind mandates wasn’t to control people’s bodies "

The mandates were forcing people to put untested chemicals in their body for reasons that turned out to be false and were known, at least by some of the authorities, to be wrong. Do try to keep up.

"But it's ok for people to choose spreading the virus by not wearing masks or staying away from others ? "

Indyvidual,

It has been comprehensively shown that the masks provided no protection and may well have caused more harm than good.

Equally, it has been shown that the notion of social distancing was completely useless in regards to the virus. Fauci has now admitted that the 2 metre social distancing rule was completely made up with no science behind it. And other studies have found little to no evidence that the virus could be or was spread in outdoor environments.

The safest place to be during the pandemic hysteria was outdoors. So of course governments forced people indoors!!

mhaze,

Knowing in advance that you were going to go down the ‘AssErTiOn!’ route bit, I mentioned that we’d already established it on another thread.

Feel free to explain why I’m wrong.

//What I mean is that if you look at the statistics, virtually no children died and the vast majority of those who did die were elderly.//

How does this prediction of yours contradict what the authorities were saying or suggest some grand conspiracy?

//Is that toooooo difficult for you to follow?//

It’s not about being too difficult to follow. It’s about seeking clarity for your trademark vagueness with non-standard terms like “effective immunity.” Your suggestion is classic mHaZe, take an attempt to save time and avoid accidental straw-manning and make it look like something else in order to discredit the person to deflect from the weakness of your position.

Your link to the ABS doesn’t support your claim that "there is a largely unexplained rise in excess deaths in Australia and many other nations.” It’s no wonder you didn’t elaborate.

There was a rise in deaths linked to conditions like cancer, dementia, and heart disease, which were exacerbated by the pandemic's strain on the healthcare system. The rise is not unexplained.

It seems I’m not the one here who can’t understand figures.

//The mandates were forcing people to put untested chemicals in their body for reasons that turned out to be false and were known, at least by some of the authorities, to be wrong.//

No, this is just another of your baseless conspiracy theories.

The vaccines were rigorously tested through clinical trials before being approved for emergency use and later full authorisation. Yes, they were developed quickly, but this was due to unprecedented necessity, not a lack of testing. The claim that the vaccines were "untested" or that mandates were based on knowingly false information is pure conspiracy theory.

So, your abortion comparison was still a false equivalence.

Mhaze keep speaking the truth, unlike the unsubstantiated claims from the great self-proclaimer of truth who thinks it must be true because he says so.
An example of his pure wishful thinking not in keeping with the facts :"The vaccines were rigorously tested through clinical trials before being approved for emergency use and later full authorisation...."

Well, this is what NORMALLY happens:
"After collecting data, regulatory bodies assess vaccine safety and effectiveness before the vaccine is licensed. The whole process of vaccine development to licensure takes around 10 years "
This is what REALLY happened:
"Overlapping and combined phases of clinical trials, the urgency of a need for a safe and effective vaccine, international collaborative efforts, funding and pre-planning in manufacturing have allowed vaccine development time-frame to be compressed to about 10 months. COVID-19 vaccines are being rolled out for emergency use authorisation in several countries. However, as there are limited safety data, full registration of the vaccine will only be given after extended safety monitoring, which will take several years..."
(No wonder the manufacturers were granted immunity). But if some believe they are "perfectly safe and effective" as we were constantly told, roll up for the boosters you'll need about every six months!

" I mentioned that we’d already established it on another thread."

Sit down to read this JD, but just saying I was wrong back in 2020 doesn't make it so. There's nothing in the 2020 post that is incorrect.

Mikko,

"(No wonder the manufacturers were granted immunity)."

Yep, that's the most telling point of all. The manufacturers knew that their product was suspect but also knew that governments were desperate to find a way out of their lockdown dead-end. So they screwed them to agree to immunity. I wonder how many people would have rushed for the vaccines if they'd known how fearful the manufacturers were that their product would cause severe side-effects.

The other thing about their testing is that they've admitted they never tested to see if the vaccine would stop transmission. They knew it wouldn't because it wasn't designed to. Yet they and the various authorities promoted the drugs on the basis that they would halt the transmission of the dreaded wuflu.

Hence - no royal commission.

mhaze,

It appears you need me to recap the last time we debated your covid conspiracies and the inaccuracies of your predictions.

//There's nothing in the 2020 post that is incorrect.//

On the contrary, pretty much everything you said was incorrect. You:

- underestimated the severity of covid by comparing it to seasonal flu when it caused far more deaths globally;

- predicted a fatality rate as low as 0.01%, but actual rates were 1-2%, much higher than the flu;

- downplayed the threat when final death tolls exceeded 1 million in the US and 200,000+ in the UK;

- advocated for isolating only the vulnerable, which was ineffective due to asymptomatic transmission and broad community spread.

- claimed lockdowns were unnecessary and economically disastrous, yet countries with early lockdowns saw better public health outcomes and faster economic recovery.

I’m still waiting on evidence for any of your claims this time around. I guess that’s never going to happen, is it?

Mhaze, anyone who reads or watches anything outside of "Their ABC" or The Guardian should know that your statements including excess deaths since the vax rollout are true and verifiable.
Meanwhile we saw how "the clot shot" AstraZeneca was finally withdrawn from use in Australia in March 2023 after it became clear it could cause severe thrombosis, but other countries were aware of this years before - the UK withdrew it in 2021 along with many others.
This from a March 2021 report: "More than a dozen countries, mostly in Europe, have suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine over fears the shot may have caused some recipients to develop blood clots.
Sweden and Latvia on Tuesday became the latest nations to halt the rollout, following moves by Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Denmark, Norway, and The Netherlands, among others..."

The WHO claimed it was still safe but it was finally withdrawn world-wide in May this year.

JD,

1) I was comparing the wuflu to the usual flu in regards to Australia and as I showed you previously the deaths in Australia were comparable. I already explained this to you but comprehension seems to be an issue for you.

2)"a fatality rate as low as 0.01%" Wrong. Which part of my statement that "better data now has this [the IFR] being well below 1%" was too complex for you? I did mention 0.01% only because that was one of the numbers being touted at the time. But you knew that, didn't you? Well I hope you did or I'm giving you too much credit.

3) " final death tolls exceeded 1 million in the US and 200,000+ in the UK". Again I was talking about Australia. I mentioned that the original estimates for the US and UK were being downgraded. That was completely factual.

4) "advocated for isolating only the vulnerable" True. Hurrah, you got one right. But isolating the vulnerable was and remains the correct policy.

5)"claimed lockdowns were unnecessary and economically disastrous, yet countries with early lockdowns saw better public health outcomes and faster economic recovery." Now you're just making stuff up, aren't you? Those who got out of lockdowns earliest had the best economic outcomes and the level or timing of lockdowns had little to no effect on health outcomes. But the lockdowns were an economic disaster the world over. The US continues to sit on the precipice of recession as does Australia and our interest rate disaster is due primarily to the massive sums squandered on the lockdowns.

So not a good analysis from you JD. I get that it pains you that I understood the situation so early but if you hang around you might learn to look at the world as it is rather than how the authorities you are so enthralled to tell you it is.

mhaze,

How many times do I have to show you that I’m not making anything up before you'll be too embarrassed to keep making the claims?

You’re not quick to learn.

1. Even if you were only talking about Australia, the comparison still doesn’t hold up. Australia’s low death toll compared to other nations is a result of strict lockdowns and interventions. The virus itself wasn’t "like the flu" - it was Australia’s early actions that kept it from becoming worse.

2. Even at less than 1%, covid’s fatality rate was still much higher than seasonal flu, especially before vaccines. Mentioning 0.01%, even if it was "touted," is misleading because it downplays the actual risks at that time.

3. Narrowing the argument to Australia doesn't change the fact that globally, covid was far deadlier than expected. Citing only Australia to claim you were right ignores the broader context where predictions of high death tolls turned out to be accurate.

4. Asymptomatic transmission made this strategy unworkable. Covid spread even among those without symptoms, making it impossible to shield the vulnerable effectively without broader measures like lockdowns.

5. Countries that acted quickly with lockdowns actually recovered faster both in health and economic terms. The idea that lockdowns caused the economic problems oversimplifies the issue. The global economic fallout was due to the pandemic itself, not just the measures to control it.

So, your arguments either ignore the broader context or rely on selective data. Australia’s success came from the policies you criticise.

Well mhaze, I'd give up the "I said/ you said" debate with the undebatable -don't be sidetracked by claims that what you have said recently or in the past wasn't true when it's borne out by actual events.
I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) a wise old journo and great raconteur/ author:
"It ain't what you know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know that just ain't so".
I think that is obviously on display here, and not by you.

The safest place to be during the pandemic hysteria was outdoors.
mhaze,
That goes without saying but that's not what you're arguing. You're saying none of the precautions taken have proven to be useless. First of all, this is just way too broad & general a statement.
We're not talking about the clean outdoors, we're talking about rabbit warren-like city environments for which I'm certain the precautions worked !
We only got Covid when it was brought in by Southerners escaping the rabbit warrens.

Mikko2,

Yep, the information that has come out over the past two years really does verify and vindicate all those who opposed the lockdowns and mandates policies. Yet we still have people like JD and indyvidual who cling to the belief in what the government and health authorities told them to believe. That people still think masking was anything other than a waste of effort (at best) and positively dangerous (at worst) or that social distancing did anything useful, does show how entrenched people's desire to bend to authority is.

There is little doubt that the whole lockdown regime was a mess and that governments will avoid that path in the future, especially when more and more people come to realise how wrong it was.

Likewise, it is now clear that growing numbers have come to realise that the vaccine regime of never-ending boosters is ineffective and have stopped getting boosted.

Nonetheless, the lockdown era was one that will be studied. The ease with which government was able to terrify the population into ceding their liberties was shocking to me. Victorian police actually shot people protesting their loss of democratic liberties and a majority applauded. Those with an authoritarian bent will take note.

OTOH, this was an era where the rise of non-traditional media came to the fore. The data that people like you and I have been able to elicit to understand how the people were being conned was only available due to the WWW and places like Twitter. In the past, establishment media would have been able to control the flow of (mis)information, but, for the moment, that has been defeated. Which is why governments are so anxious to introduce censorship laws.

New and better data will continue to be released over the next few years and the case against lockdowns will grow. Once all those with a vested interest in hiding the truth have moved on, things like a royal commission might be possible. I'd expect by 2035 you'd struggle to find anyone who would admit to being pro-lockdown.

mhaze,
The World would be quite different if Pasteur had the same views as you !

mhaze,

No, I don’t just blindly follow the government line. I go by what the science available at the time says. We’re just lucky most governments did, too.

Drawing this conclusion about Indyvidual and myself is as absurd as one of us claiming that you just blindly follow what the government says because you wear a seatbelt. You don’t wear a seatbelt because the government says you should - you wear it because the data shows that doing so is the safest course of action. It just so happens that most governments around the world agree.

As for the rest of your reply to Mikko2, you’re just doubling-down there.

Your argument that lockdowns were ineffective is not backed by solid evidence. Early interventions saved lives and prevented the collapse of healthcare systems, even though there were economic costs. Masking and social distancing were also effective, especially before vaccines were available, as multiple peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated.

As for vaccine boosters, people may stop getting them for various reasons, but it isn’t because of inefficacy - boosters have continued to reduce severe illness and death. The idea that public health measures were about controlling people ignores their real intent: to protect lives during an unprecedented crisis.

While alternative media provided access to some information, it also became a platform for spreading misinformation. Governments didn’t seek to censor free speech; they sought to prevent dangerous misinformation from leading to more harm. Speculating that people will be ashamed to support lockdowns by 2035 is just that - speculation - and is likely to be as accurate as your claim in 2013 that the science behind anthropogenic climate change was in its "death throes."

Your framing of the issue ignores the larger body of evidence supporting these public health measures and leans heavily on selective interpretation and conspiracy-based thinking.

Check out this world excess mortality chart which shows Sweden and Taiwan almost flatlining across the bottom, both of which had NO covid lockdowns, compared with the US and UK. Both countries also apparently fared better than most economically, post covid:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-covid?country=USA~RUS~MEX~BRA~IRN~PER~SWE

If Sweden and Taiwan don't appear on the graph from that link, just select them in the squares in the panel down the right side.

Mikko2,

Ha! I saw what you did there. You chose countries (most of which were backwater shitholes) and put them in with Sweden to skew the results.

This gives a more accurate picture from our context:

http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-covid?country=SWE~AUS

Notice the rise there at the start for Sweden? Yeah, that was their lax covid response at work.

mhaze and I have discussed the reasons as to why Australia overtook Sweden eventually, too.

I'm happy to go through it all with you as well, if you'd like?

Mikko2,
You're not serious about comparing Sweden & Taiwan to the Demographic cesspits of the rest of the World ?
Give us the figures for England, Europe, USA & Australia ! And, how did African Nations fare ?

Mikko2,

"Check out this world excess mortality chart which shows Sweden and Taiwan almost flatlining across the bottom,"

Sweden of course almost uniquely in the western world took the view that its citizens were adults who could make rational decisions for themselves. Taiwan had a series of benefits which allowed it to avoid the worst of the dreaded wuflu. First they are an island which meant the could isolate from the rest of humanity rather easily. (Australia had that same advantage which largely explain why we did better than most). Secondly, Taiwan was close to China and knows the CCP better than most meaning they didn't fall for the lies China told at the beginning of the hysteria. Finally, because of the one China idiocy, they were excluded from the WHO which meant the didn't have to follow its utterly failing pronouncements. Lucky Formosa.

indy,

"The World would be quite different if Pasteur had the same views as you !"

In string theory it is postulated that their are an infinite number of parallel universes. But even then, in none of those universes would your statement make any sense.

JD,

"Masking and social distancing were also effective, especially before vaccines were available, as multiple peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated."

Rubbish. Fauci and others have already admitted that the 2 metre (6 foot) rule was just made up and has/had no science behind it.

in none of those universes would your statement make any sense.
mhaze,
Why, just because you haven't got any answers ? Pretty poor mentality having to resort to ridicule !

mhaze,

After all that I said, I’m glad we’re just down to that one little point of contention.

Your claim that the 6-foot rule was "just made up" is incorrect. There was limited knowledge about how covid spread early in the piece, so the 6-foot rule was based on the best available data at the time regarding droplet transmission.

Yes, it was later revised as more was learned about aerosol transmission, but this doesn’t mean it was entirely baseless. Many studies showed that distancing helped to reduce transmission, especially in indoor settings.

Also, while Fauci and others acknowledged that the specifics of the rule were not exact, the general principle of distancing (along with masking) was supported by evidence, especially before vaccines were widely available.

Nothing was “made up” - it was an evolving response to a rapidly changing situation.

indy,

There's a concept in philosophy called obscurantisme terroriste.

Basically it means that the fool writes something so obscure, so unintelligible that no one can understand the point. (That's the obscurantisme part) And when its pointed out that it makes no sense, they simply claim to be too smart to even bother to explain it (that's the terroriste part).

If you think your comment makes any sense, explain it in intelligible prose - if you can.

________________________________________________________________

JD "Nothing was “made up”"

Well I was just passing on what Fauci et al said. But I can see that if the authorities told you it was factual, you are going to believe them, no questions asked.

"“It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” Fauci testified to Congress in a January closed-door hearing, according to a transcribed interview released Friday. Dr. Anthony Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.” Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, also privately testified to Congress in January that he was not aware of evidence behind the social distancing recommendation, according to a transcript released in May. "

"Dr. Anthony Fauci said in congressional testimony that he reviewed no scientific evidence behind the specific recommendations for masking"

Yes, I can agree that the period was one where they were all flying blind. But they weren't saying they were flying blind, instead telling all those who'd fall for it (remind you of anyone JD?) that they knew exactly what to do. That's bad enough. But there were other voices who , we now know, were advocating better science and better policies. And those people were being censored, fired, pushed out of academia, having careers destroyed. All while trying to alter everyone to the disasters the lockdowns were bringing.

mhaze,

You’re taking Fauci’s comments out of context. The 6-foot rule wasn’t about being "made up" as much as it was about acting quickly with the best knowledge at the time.

There wasn’t the time to wait around for perfect data. Something had to be done to slow the spread, and distancing seemed like the best option based on what was known about droplet transmission at that time. Later, as we learned more about aerosols, the guidance shifted, but that doesn’t mean they were just guessing.

Same thing with masks - early on, there wasn’t concrete proof on every detail, but common sense and existing knowledge about how respiratory viruses spread made masking a logical precaution. Over time, studies showed they worked, especially before vaccines were available.

The dissenting voices supposedly being "silenced" weren’t coming from people who had solutions that were known to be better or based on more reliable data, they were just different opinions on what should be done. Public health measures adapted as new data came in, and changing recommendations doesn’t mean authorities were wrong - it just shows they were willing to change course as needed.

Science isn’t about certainty; it’s about responding to what we know and making adjustments when new info comes in. That’s what happened here.

I realise none of this is as exciting as a grand conspiracy, but the truth is often more dull than fiction in this context. If you want it to be stranger than fiction, then get into quantum physics or any science disproving religious accounts of origins.

Well mhaze, you can rely on good old JD for a laugh as this quote shows:
"You chose countries (most of which were backwater shitholes) and put them in with Sweden to skew the results...:

So The US and UK are backwater shitholes? Maybe if Cackling Kamala wins and Starmer with his band of idiots now running the UK keep going down the same destructive path, that might actually be accurate.

mhaze,
you not comprehending is no indication that you were reading nonsensical words. I think it's more a case of you not conceding that there were other possibilities besides those you believe should have been.
So, when will you give us some stats for the rest of the World after all, it was a world-wide virus.
Cooped up in tight proximity it's only logical that the transmission & infection rate was many times higher than for those living away from the virus trapping concrete jungles.

For the benefit of indyvidual and the world excess death chart if the country you want doesn't appear, just click on it in the open boxes to the right (as I've said before) - the very high rates for the US, UK and many other large countries are all there high up in the chart index.
Meanwhile, re the "perfectly safe and effective" mantra here's what one seriously affected scientist had to say on News.com (similar to the comments about severe reactions from former AMA president Dr Kerryn Phelps which were conveniently overlooked by the vax fans in an earlier post:

A man left unable to work for eight months after his Covid jab says thousands are suffering “life-changing” neurological symptoms he dubs “long vax”.

...Dr Rado Faletic has slammed the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) adverse event reporting process, saying the medicines regulator tasked with vaccine safety surveillance was “simply uninterested” in investigating his symptoms despite submitting multiple reports.

“I’m similar to thousands of Aussies. After the vaccine I had a huge constellation of symptoms from head to toe,” the 46-year-old said, describing it as similar to “mutant long Covid”.

“The worst has been an oppressive brain fog. I’ve had headaches, chest pains, abdominal pains, unbelievable muscle twitching, issues focusing my vision. Basically I’ve been unable to work for eight months. I’m only now just starting to feel a little bit normal. This is not a mild side effect – this has been life-changing.”...

Mikko2,

Note that I said “most of which.” The US healthcare system is largely available only to those who can afford it and Trump was slow to act. Also, you didn’t include the UK in your first link.

Speaking of the UK, though, the sharp and sustained rise in excess deaths there can be attributed to their delayed initial response, inconsistent lockdowns, and the rapid spread of covid before effective public health measures were fully implemented. The UK's high death toll was the result of an overwhelmed healthcare system during the peaks of the pandemic.

Sweden shows a much lower cumulative excess death rate than the UK, but this doesn’t necessarily mean Sweden's approach was better. Sweden experienced higher death rates early on compared to its Nordic neighbours who implemented stricter measures.

Sweden's excess deaths levelling out was due to a combination of factors, such as their overall healthier population, lower population density, and healthcare system capacity, which managed to avoid the kind of overwhelm that the hospitals in the UK experienced.

There's a lot more to the story than just raw figures. You're cherry-picking your data.

I've said several times that to view a country in the excess death charts, just click on the boxes on the right (and the UK and US were both ticked before I sent the link. If they didn't appear, I said to select them or any other country).

maze, notice how the "safe and effective" believers ignore actual first-hand reports in mainstream media? Here's another one from News.com (there are many more on various sites and Facebook posts):

"A young Queensland teacher who suffered a severe adverse reaction to her first Covid shot says her life has “essentially been ruined” after the state’s vaccine mandate left her unable to work unless she took her second dose.

"Bek Bickerton, 27, received her first Pfizer vaccine in October and immediately began experiencing side effects, including changes to her menstrual cycle and fatigue, which continued to worsen.

"By November she was hospitalised for a week with dizziness, blurred vision, tingling down her arms, extreme fatigue, low blood pressure and what was later diagnosed as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

“My heart would accelerate to extreme levels when I stood up,” she said.

“A brain MRI showed multiple lesions and inflammation. I also had trouble regulating blood pressure and heat. I had a wide range of symptoms but the worst ones were severe brain fog and fatigue.”

She was sent home with a diagnosis of POTS and “spent the next two months in bed”, unable to look after her two young children..."

Mikko2,

According to your link, you didn’t tick the UK, but it doesn’t matter. I’m over that now. Bygones.

//maze, notice how the "safe and effective" believers ignore actual first-hand reports in mainstream media?//

I think mhaze is gone for now. He seems to take a few days break after a devastating arse-kicking. But, I’ll respond to this for you.

The cases you cite represent a tiny fraction of the millions of people vaccinated globally. While no medical treatment is without risks, the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that vaccines have prevented far more deaths, hospitalizations, and long-term health problems than they’ve caused.

Mentioning the safety and effectiveness of vaccines doesn't necessitate denying the rare adverse reactions, but placing a disproportionate amount of focus on them sure does amount to cherry-picking. The case of Bek Bickerton is tragic, but it would be foolish to extrapolate from a single incident while ignoring the bigger picture.

Yes, you’ve mentioned adjusting the chart to see different countries. But again, just looking at raw numbers without understanding the context behind them is problematic. The reasons for excess deaths vary drastically from country to country - some of which I mentioned in my last post. Sweden’s relatively lower excess deaths don’t necessarily indicate that their approach was better, especially when comparing them to countries like their Nordic neighbors, who had stricter measures and lower death rates overall.

Cherry-picking data or focusing on individual anecdotes doesn’t give the full picture. We have to look at the broader evidence and the cumulative effects of public health interventions.

And from GP Dr Julie Sladden in an article in The Spectator Australia:
"Regarding the reported deaths, the TGA states, in its final safety report on the Covid injections in November 2023, ‘The TGA has identified 14 reports where the cause of death was linked to vaccination from 1,004 reports received and reviewed (as of October 29, 2023). There have been no new vaccine-related deaths identified since 2022.’

Noted.

To date, there have been almost 140,000 adverse event reports entered to DAEN for the Covid injections, including 1,010 reported deaths.

At this point, you may be interested to know that the number of adverse events reported for the Covid injections amounts to around 20 per cent of all adverse events reported to the TGA – for all medicines combined – for the past 50 years..."

Yep, perfectly safe and effective... Get your boosters now, guys.

From the same article by GP Dr Julie Sladden, which shoots down any claims that the vaccines were subject to rigorous safety testing before the rushed roll-out:

"The EMA Assessment Report on Comirnaty (Pfizer) is a 140-page document dated the 19th of February 2021. Lo and behold, on page 55, it states: ‘No genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity (cancer-causing) studies have been provided.’ Then on page 115, I was very alarmed to see a whole table list called ‘Summary of Safety Concerns’.

The list Cousins found contained important identified risks – anaphylaxis, and important potential risks – this also included vaccine-associated enhanced disease, vaccine-enhanced respiratory disease, and a whole section called ‘missing information’. ‘Missing information’ included use in pregnancy, breastfeeding, immunocompromised patients, frail patients with co-morbidities, and patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. The report also listed ‘long term safety data’ as ‘missing information’.

A similar list can be found on page 31 in the TGA’s Public Assessment Report dated January 2021 along with the decision, ‘Approved for provisional registration’...

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/opendaen-making-sense-of-the-tgas-covid-adverse-event-reports/

Mikko,

"maze, notice how the "safe and effective" believers ignore actual first-hand reports in mainstream media? Here's another one from News.com (there are many more on various sites and Facebook posts):"

Yeah, there are definitely a coterie of people who just don't want to know and therefore ignore all the evidence that the vaccines were not even close to the level of safety that would normally be required to unleash them onto the populace. That is why is was so disgraceful that people were effectively forced to be injected even as the authorities ignored the dangers.

We know that the vaccine manufacturers sought and received indemnity from prosecution if their vaccines proved unsafe. They knew there might be problems. The authorities knew there might be problems. The public...not so much.

Why? Well government's had painted themselves into a lockdown corner and needed a way to walkback the lockdowns without admitting error. The vaccines provided that excuse. And they jumped at it. Pretty disgraceful really.

"I think mhaze is gone for now. He seems to take a few days break after a devastating arse-kicking. But, I’ll respond to this for you."

Bwahahaha.

Actually I had to go to the big smoke to watch the Swans play themselves into a grand final.

JD' notion that his mere assertions represent an arse-kicking is hilarious. The childish notion that merely asserting someone is wrong is proof that someone is wrong is inane, funny and sad all at once.

But so very JD.

mhaze,

Regardless of the reasons for you absence this time, you still had your arse kicked hard.

Your last tactic was to take Fauci's words out of context. You're back now, but instead of conceding that it was poor form to do that, or showing me why I'm wrong, you return with yet more deflection.

Cherry-pick and deflection. Deflection and cherry-picking. You ever considered critical thinking and honesty?

mhaze, anyone who watched the live interview with Dodgy Fauci would know you didn't quote him out of context. But you're right, it's good for a laugh, as I've frequently said. Notice nothing in response to GP Julie Sladden's comments about how lax the testing was prior to the provisional vax approvals and rollouts. There is also much more from her and also a response to my article from a bloke on a Facebook site just a couple of days ago who has experienced debilitating symptoms similar to the others I've posted, but if anyone has persisted thru all the comments and evidence produced here without being convinced, let them exercise their own free choice to get boosted. Repeatedly...

Is that so, Mikko2?

//mhaze, anyone who watched the live interview with Dodgy Fauci would know you didn't quote him out of context.//

If you're so confident of that, then how about you link us all to it?

I was going to myself, but then I thought I'd let you do the honours.

This is the post on Facebook a couple of days ago which I referred to - just the latest that blows "safe and effective" out of the water (poor bloke said "go for it" when I asked if I could copy it here, and it's more relevant than Dodgy Fauci's blatant backflips and admissions about rules made on the fly with no scientific basis:

"Arno Beckmann
Top contributor
Try this on:
Coerced into getting 2 shots of the big V with nil initial after effects. Refused to have naymore .
Started to suffer cramps in my legs. Saw a vascular surgeon who diagnosed popatial aneurisms behind both knees requiring micro bypass surgery. Operations succesfull on both legs but discovered a further aneurism 30mm in the main aorta near my bellybutton . At the same time tests revealed I'd has the 1st of 3 heart attacks. Commenced medication with blood thinners etc
Had a further heart attack. Tests reveal I was suffering from Pericarditis.
Had a 3rd heart and had 2 stents placed outside the heart. More meds
Still suffering from Aerterial Fibrulation ( or similar)
Health is shot. One day at a time.
Do you think I blame the big "V"? You betcha."

" you didn't quote him [Fauci] out of context".

I know. But this is standard JD. Any information he doesn't want to be true simply gets rejected as cherry-picking or out of context. He never explains how its cherry-picked. He never explains how or where its taken out of context. He somehow thinks that his mere assertions are sufficient evidence.

The point about this whole issue is that the evidence keeps accumulating as to the failures of the whole response to the wuflu. The more we know the more we understand how many errors were made and what the cost to community was due to those errors. To be sure, once the dreaded virus escaped the Wuhan lab and was then allowed to spread world-wide, there were no good outcomes available. The options were bad and worse. We increasingly learn that our rulers chose the worst of the options available.

mhaze,

If it really were the case that you were quoting Fauci in context, then I wouldn’t have been able to put the context to it that I did.

Claiming that I just say a quote it out-of-context when I don’t what it to be true amounts to a mere “Nuh-uh!” You’re going to have to try better than that.

Again, Fauci didn’t say the 6-foot rule was made up from thin air, but that it was based on droplet transmission studies at the time. You keep framing it as though it was completely arbitrary, but the CDC used what knowledge they had then to reduce transmission.

//The point about this whole issue is that the evidence keeps accumulating as to the failures of the whole response to the wuflu.//

What evidence? You haven’t shown any. Don't keep it all to yourself, now. I want in.

"What evidence? You haven’t shown any. Don't keep it all to yourself, now. I want in."

See above.

mhaze,

Oh, so the mounting evidence is a few cherry-picked anecdotes, a misinterpreted Fauci quote, correlation without causation on excess deaths, and a misleading Sweden comparison?

I thought you might have had something else - some actual evidence.

This is getting ridiculous. When I said see above I meant all the stuff I've posted and linked here over the past few years some of which I've referred to in this thread.

I've kept a rather large database of bookmarked reports on the failures of the lockdowns since in my view it is the single greatest public policy failure since Y2K.

Here are a small number of the reports I've pointed to on this and other sites since April 2020.....

http://tiny.cc/zo3nzz
http://tiny.cc/7p3nzz
http://brownstone.org/articles/lockdowns-did-not-save-lives-concludes-meta-analysis/
http://tiny.cc/cu3nzz
http://tiny.cc/hu3nzz

mhaze,

No, it’s not getting ridiculous. You suggested scrolling up, giving no specifics. Then, when I call you out on that, you link me to nearly 100 pages of reading.

Conveniently, you don’t list what exactly it is that is supported in the links you provided. Luckily, we now have the technology now to verify the accuracy of your claims in seconds. So, with no further ado, let’s get started.

The Brownstone meta-analysis relies heavily on selectively chosen studies and omits data that highlights the role lockdowns played in protecting healthcare systems from collapse. Even the meta-analysis acknowledges its own limitations. This doesn’t prove lockdowns failed entirely - it simply highlights studies that fit a specific narrative.

The UNSW report does address the economic toll of Australia’s covid response but also recognizes that early lockdowns were effective in saving lives. You’re interpreting it to fit your viewpoint, but the report doesn’t claim lockdowns were a "mistake," it points out areas that could have been managed differently. That’s far from the collapse you're suggesting.

The Johns Hopkins analysis focuses mainly on economic impacts, but it neglects the public health success in keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed. You’re zeroing in on the economic downsides while overlooking the primary goal, which was to save lives.

The Independent Review critiques parts of Australia's covid response but doesn't label lockdowns as failures. It emphasizes that early actions saved lives, while also offering suggestions for future improvements. This review doesn’t support your arguments.

By the way, Y2K wasn’t just a scare - it was a successful preventative effort. Y2K amounted to nothing not because it was a non-issue, but because proactive measures were taken to prevent it. It’s an ironic comparison, really, because the "failure" you describe was actually a global success story in averting disaster - just like covid lockdowns prevented far worse outcomes.

There’s no use in lying and deceiving nowadays. It’s just too hard to get away with.

"
There’s no use in lying and deceiving nowadays. It’s just too hard to get away with."

Yet you keep trying.

BTW I see you understand Y2K in the same jaundiced way you understand the wuflu issue ie not at all.

It seems you've been beaten down so badly on this that you're now reduced to making the unsupported and unsupportable claim that the lockdowns saved the hospital system. Every time you see evidence that the lockdowns failed to save lives you simply revert to the unsupported assertion that it saved the hospital system without offering any evidence for the assertion. Still we are used to that, aren't we?

Jurisdictions which didn't lockdown didn't see any collapse in their hospital system but you'll ignore that because.....well just because.

mhaze,

I haven't lied once, nor have you caught me lying. You, on the other hand, are caught on a regular basis - with yesterday being the most recent incident. And you've just done it multiple times again.

//It seems you've been beaten down so badly on this that you're now reduced to making the unsupported and unsupportable claim that the lockdowns saved the hospital system.//

Beaten down? Heh, no, all of my points are still standing. Yours, on the other hand, are scattered in pieces.

We’ve already gone through the fact that the lockdowns reduced the burden on healthcare systems in detail; so thoroughly, in fact, that you had to abandon it. Now you’re just going to assert otherwise. “Nuh-uh!”

//Every time you see evidence that the lockdowns failed to save lives you simply revert to the unsupported assertion that it saved the hospital system without offering any evidence for the assertion.//

You haven’t provided any evidence of this. Your last few links failed to do this, too.

//Jurisdictions which didn't lockdown didn't see any collapse in their hospital system but you'll ignore that because.....well just because.//

I never ignored it before, so why would I suddenly start ignoring it now?

Preventing healthcare collapse isn’t just about keeping hospitals from literally shutting down - it’s about ensuring they can continue to function without being overwhelmed by preventable cases. Lockdowns helped spread out the impact, saving more lives in the long run.

Would you like to go through it all again? I doubt it.

You can't convince the closed minds mhaze, but for those who can think logically here's some more from Australian GP Dr Julie Sladden in The Spectator:

"And what of the effects of repeatedly boosting the population? The unexpected association of increased risk of Covid with more prior vaccine doses, as suggested by the Cleveland study, certainly warrants further attention before we funnel the population into a lifelong program of endless boosters. Not to mention what repeated boosting might be doing to our immune systems. ..

"As for ‘safe’, the recently released Australian CDC surveillance report of adverse events following Covid vaccines concludes ‘there was an unprecedentedly large number of AEFI reports observed following the introduction of Covid-19 vaccines in 2021’. Meanwhile, the significance of the alarming number of adverse event reports is summarised succinctly, by scientist Dr Andrew Madry, at the recent Senate Inquiry into Excess Mortality.

"‘Covid medicines account for 23 per cent of all adverse events reported in the whole 53-year history of the DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications) for all medicines. It takes up 38 per cent of all cardiac disorders in the 53-year history.’"

Mikko,

I thought you might like these. I came across them while I was scrolling though my covid archives....

http://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/29/the-narrative-in-retreat/

eg "Based on the original Phase 3 trial data, Bart Classen showed as early as August 2021: “Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statically significant increase in ‘all cause severe morbidity’ in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.”

or this

http://victorygirlsblog.com/nyt-opinion-admits-mask-mandates-were-useless/

" "'Do something' is not science, and it shouldn't have been public policy."

JD,

Now you're just playing semantics..."Preventing healthcare collapse isn’t just about keeping hospitals from literally shutting down - it’s about ensuring they can continue to function without being overwhelmed by preventable cases. "

Collapse or overwhelm or whatever you you want to call it, didn't happen.

If lockdowns stopped it form happening then those places without lockdowns would have suffered the collapse/overwhelming/whatever you want to call it.

But they didn't. So an adult with a modicum of logic would realise that the hospitals survived with or without lockdown.

But I get that you've fallen hook, line and sinker for the government claims about the need for lockdowns and mere proof that they were worse than useless isn't going to affect that grovelling to authority.

mhaze,

You’ve been on the backfoot the entire time, and none of your arguments have held up to any scrutiny, and you’ve provided no credible evidence for anything you’ve said. So, why would I suddenly start resorting to semantical games?

//Collapse or overwhelm or whatever you you want to call it, didn't happen.//

Yes, the latter did.

We saw hospitals across Italy, parts of the US, and even the UK get pushed to their limits before lockdowns were properly implemented. Patients were treated in hallways and even parking lots in some places, and non-covid care was delayed or cancelled entirely. That’s what being overwhelmed looks like.

Just because full-on collapse didn’t happen everywhere doesn’t mean lockdowns were unnecessary. The goal was to prevent that kind of overwhelm from becoming widespread. Comparing places like Sweden or other jurisdictions with different conditions ignores the reality that without lockdowns, many other places would’ve seen their healthcare systems buckle under the strain.

Not every region faced the same conditions. Population density, healthcare capacity, timing, and existing infrastructure all played a role. Comparing regions with vastly different variables and claiming it proves lockdowns were "worse than useless" is either naïve or deliberately misleading.

But we’ve already been through all this before. I don’t know why you should expect your arse to be kicked any less hard a second time around.

By the way, I was working in the IT industry as a programmer between 1998-2013, so I know what I'm talking about as far as Y2K goes. What were you doing? Googling (or Yahoo-ing) conspiracy theories, by the sounds of it.

"We saw hospitals across Italy, parts of the US, and even the UK get pushed to their limits before lockdowns were properly implemented."

Oh well, if a few hospitals on the other side of the planet suffered a few days of overload, that certainly justifies closing down the entire economy and society in Australia or something. I think you're running out of straws to clutch.

The hospital system in Australia was never under threat. The politicians here (you know, the ones you habitually defer to) were simply mouthing the platitudes coming from the other side of the world. Two weeks to flatten the curve became 6 months to flatten the economy - from which we still haven't recovered.

I hear-tell that Adelaide's hospitals have a major problem with overload in their emergency departments. I think we urgently need close down the entire society to avoid that happening in NSW.</sarc>

"You’ve been on the backfoot the entire time, and none of your arguments have held up to any scrutiny,"

Scrutiny? Is that what you're calling it? Simply saying 'you're wrong because I say you're wrong and that proves you're wrong' isn't scrutiny. Anyone reading the thread knows that.

____________________________________________________________________

"By the way, I was working in the IT industry as a programmer between 1998-2013, so I know what I'm talking about as far as Y2K goes. "

Well I don't think you know what you're talking about on any subject.

I was a programmer on System 36 mainframes from 1980 - 85. A programmer on 086 style PCs for a few years after that, a software consultant for a decade and IT manager through the late 90s into the early 2000s. Thereafter I freelanced as a programmer for the shipping industry until around 2010 and still have two international clients who I do occasional consulting for. That's what I was doing.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20173#356631

In all my years in the industry, I've never met a programmer or anyone conversant with the issue who thought it was anything other than an overblown scare. Forgive me if I doubt your credentials.

mhaze, thanks for the articles linked above, which give even more concrete evidence of the emerging facts about the great covid over-reach and mass panic surrounding vaccine mandates, lockdowns and censorship.
I know who has "had their arse kicked" and it's obvious it sure ain't you, but as I've said you can't debate reasonably with closed minds.
Meanwhile I think this article must be setting new records for comments but there's probably only a few of us still following the long and winding road...

mhaze,

Your mockery of the hospital overloads, as if they were only “a few days” on the other side of the world, is a total distortion of what actually happened.

Healthcare systems in the countries I mentioned were pushed to the brink in the ways that I mentioned, and healthcare workers were overwhelmed for months, not just "a few days." Ignoring this reality to support your narrative doesn’t change the fact that lockdowns helped prevent this level of strain from becoming the norm everywhere.

Australia’s hospitals weren’t overwhelmed because strict measures were taken early. Comparing Australia to countries with entirely different conditions is a poor excuse for denying the evidence.

As for Y2K, you're pushing the same tired conspiracy theory that it's all a scam designed to make people rich.

In reality, Y2K didn’t result in catastrophic failure because of the proactive work done by programmers, engineers, and IT professionals around the world. Just because planes didn’t fall out of the sky doesn’t mean there wasn’t a real threat - it means that the preventative measures worked.

Your linked-to claim that companies wasted millions on a non-existent problem is like claiming a fire alarm is useless because the building didn’t burn down. The issue wasn’t a scare - it was a success story of how preventative action can avert disaster.

If you think anyone familiar with Y2K sees it as a fraud, you’re either surrounding yourself with conspiracy theorists or you’ve conveniently forgotten how many IT professionals saw the issue for what it was: a real problem that needed to be solved to prevent widespread failures.

Pretending it was all a hoax doesn’t align with the facts, just like pretending lockdowns weren’t necessary ignores the overwhelming evidence of how much worse the pandemic could have been without them.

If you doubt my experience, then I'm happy to go into the details with you if you'd like. Somehow I don't take me up on the offer.

As usual JD you completely misunderstand.

As I said years ago in the post I linked, Y2K was a problem that needed fixing. But the problem was limited to computers older than 1995 (and not even all of them) and the means to fixing it was well known and easily implemented. Sure it was sometimes time-consuming and sometimes expensive but there was never a doubt that the fixes would be implemented and would work.

The talk of planes falling out of the sky or nuclear plants exploding because they couldn't deducted a 20th century date from a 21st century date was fictitious.

If you get an infection in your pinky toe, you'll die if you do noting about it. But saying infections in pinky toes is deadly is mere alarmism.

Every organisation that had a problem had long ago recognised the problem. I was working in places in the 1980s who knew that they'd need to do something by 21/12/1999. But no panic. And when the time came to fix it, new equipment that had the memory space to store the century part of the date were easily obtained and the programming to do it was easily implemented. I did it dozens of times using all sorts of processes.

But that was not how the scare was sold to the ignorant public or, it seems, some gullible programmers. If you get an infection in your pinky, you dab some iodine on it and get on with life. If you've got a problem with the storage of the century in a date, you fix it and get on with your life.

Or as some did, you run around like chicken little and declare that the sky is falling.

The cognoscenti knew that it was a problem with an easy fix. The ignorant were convinced that it was a major issue and forked over gigantic sums for no good purpose.

mhaze,

Once again, you're downplaying the significance of a large-scale issue by focusing on how you dealt with it personally, while ignoring the broader global implications.

Yes, the Y2K bug was more relevant to older systems, and yes, IT professionals like yourself were able to fix it with relative ease in many cases, but that doesn’t mean the threat wasn’t real.

Large companies, utilities, government agencies, and infrastructure were all using legacy systems that hadn’t been upgraded, and those posed a genuine risk if not addressed. This wasn’t just a case of slapping iodine on a pinky toe and moving on with life - it required global coordination, testing, and investment to ensure nothing fell through the cracks.

Your repeated dismissal of the alarm is like saying we over-prepared for a hurricane because our homes didn’t get blown away. The reason things went smoothly is because we prepared. The “chicken little” narrative falls apart when you look at the number of organizations that had real issues to address - and the consequences they would’ve faced had they not taken it seriously.

And let’s not forget: just because the public was warned of the risks doesn’t mean it was all a scam. The truth is, most of the money spent went into fixing systems before they failed. You can’t blame people for taking action to prevent disaster when the problem was genuine, even if some took advantage for profit.

Maybe you were in a position to calmly handle the fixes in your environment, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world could afford to be so casual. Your insistence on ignoring the bigger picture has you missing the point once again.

I can't determine if he just doesn't get it or gets it but refuses to admit it.

There was a problem. The problem was addressed. By mid-1999 there was no problem. Everything resolved. Every single person who had a PC and spent money on it to 'fix' the problem was ripped off. Because the scare-mongers convinced them they needed to do 'sumfing' when in fact they had precisely nothing to worry about. Every single company that had a PC network and spent money to address the problem, wasted that money. But people did spend it because they fell for the scare.

If you were in the industry and were still alarmed in late 1999 you were either a victim or a perpetrator of the scare.

Its impossible to work out which.

mhaze,

You seem determined to paint this as a black-and-white issue: either you were a “victim or perpetrator” of a scam, or you were part of the enlightened few who knew better. But that’s a gross oversimplification.

While you may have wrapped up your Y2K fixes by mid-1999, plenty of companies - especially those with older systems - needed more time. Not everyone was running on modern hardware, and large organisations had complex infrastructures that required thorough testing. Just because you finished early doesn’t mean the entire world was equally prepared by mid-1999.

Dismissing anyone who took precautions in late 1999 as a fool who was “ripped off” misses the point entirely. The point wasn’t that planes would fall from the sky or that nuclear reactors would explode (those were exaggerations, sure), but that systems that hadn’t been updated could fail. And when you’re talking about financial institutions, healthcare, utilities, and government services, those failures would have been serious.

This wasn’t about selling fear - it was about ensuring that nothing got missed. And the fact that the Y2K issue didn’t cause major problems is a success story, not proof that it was unnecessary.

By your logic, should we never take preventative action, just because you didn’t experience problems personally? The world doesn’t operate that way. The real lesson here is that preventative measures work - even if some people blow it out of proportion, that doesn’t mean the underlying threat wasn’t real.

By the way, I didn’t panic during the process, nor was I surprised when I woke up on New year’s day 2000 to see that nothing had appeared to have collapsed, because I had a good idea of just how thoroughly the problem was being addressed everywhere. I was also aware that, either way, planes weren’t going to fall out of the sky.

Personally, I had a good chuckle to myself on New year’s eve 1999 seeing some people stock up with trolley loads of non-perishable items.