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.