March 23 will be the fifth anniversary of the first lockdown measures when the Australian government announced the closure of non-essential services like pubs, clubs, gyms, and cinemas, as well as restrictions on indoor gatherings.

It only got worse from there, especially if you lived in places like Melbourne where the police ended up shooting on lockdown protestors.

Loved grandparents died in isolation, never understanding why their loved-ones had seemingly abandoned them.

But those who perpetrated these policies on the nation want us to forget what they did.

"The Covid revisionists want us to understand that it’s all been one big misunderstanding.

They didn’t really lie to our faces about masks 'working' to stop transmission.

They didn’t really lie to our faces that 'lockdowns work' and would slow the spread.

They didn’t really lie to our faces by telling us the 'Covid vaccines' stop infection and transmission of the virus.

It’s time to move on. Trust in public health is completely broken, so the solution is for us to forgive and forget, right?

Wrong.

There has never been any serious accountability for the Big Lies told during the Covid pandemic.

No one has been held accountable for the deceptive marketing of the so-called “vaccines.” Nor the human rights violations. Nor the massive fraud perpetrated against the people.

It’s all been swept under the rug like it was a national fever dream.

But if we allow history to be rewritten, it paves the road to hell for future generations."

Now even far left institutions like the New York Times admit that they lied about the origins of the virus which most now understand was released (accidentally or purposely is unknown) from the labs in Wuhan China.

Until those responsible for the debacle that was the Covid response are held to account nothing will change or improve. Until a full accounting of the errors made five years ago is made, nothing will change or improve.

The nation is in massive debt. We are still fighting the Covid-induced inflation spike. And the authorities want us to forgive and forget....but especially forget.

If we are to keep remembering, then the list is endless and we would never get anywhere else in life.

Why is it, for example, that the perpetrators, i.e. the state and commonwealth governments of Australia, even exist to begin with?
From a human perspective, this COVID behaviour is not at all the first time they made us suffer, unfairly again... from a human perspective.

But the reality is that they are not in charge and never been: God alone is in charge, eternally, with no beginning and without end.
In reality also, God does not bring us anything we do not deserve, including the difficult parts.
In reality all we experience is for good, whatever God is doing is always for good, even if it is beyond our limited understanding to see why.

Unpleasant indeed it was, but why should we thank God only for the pleasant and not for the unpleasant too?

57 per cent of Australians still want Covid vaccine mandate
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/collateral-damage-australians-suffered-significant-human-rights-restrictions-in-covid19-era/news-story/4197c5a693757590a783190c9cd140e6

Maze.

Effectively, your lead post is a focus on your misgivings towards accountability of authorities responsible for guiding the public in a direction they believed suitable and effective in the maintenance of the health outcomes of that broader public, under the strain of a potential pandemic projected towards themselves, and those under the public heading, (for which they as in their professional roles, were responsible for such guidance), against a potential catastrophe.

Why are they wrong in so doing, if their intent was a genuine one, with genuine fears of a potential natural catastrophe?

Yuyutsu

1. Why does your God preside over the consequences of worldly outcomes both good and bad, of his own making?

2. Why is it wrong for human societies to establish a ruling order (Governance), over its citizens if its intention is to reduce chaos and disorder, and produce progress and harmony?

Dear Dan,

«1. Why does your God preside over the consequences of worldly outcomes both good and bad, of his own making?»

"MY" God?
Is yours different?
Is there more than one God in your view?

Perhaps you believe otherwise, but it is me you asked, hence this is my response:
There is nothing but God.
That being the case, nothing but God can preside over whatever happens.

«2. Why is it wrong for human societies to establish a ruling order (Governance), over its citizens if its intention is to reduce chaos and disorder, and produce progress and harmony?»

I wouldn't use the word "wrong".
It may be a wrong answer for school children to say that 7x8=65, or that the capital of Australia is Sydney, but the fact that some school students give such answers, that not all of them get straight A's all the time, is not wrong, after all schools are there for the learning and so is this earth.

People make mistakes - but they eventually learn from their mistakes.
Their intention may indeed be well, but their solution can still be erroneous.

There is no chaos and no disorder in God's universe, so what does not exist cannot be reduced.
Progress is individual. One can only progress if they so choose, not by being ordered.
Harmony is desirable at some stage, but before that stage is reached, before one is ready, attempts to force it artificially bring stagnation instead.

Yeah lets start with morrisson, dutton, taylor, susssssan, the beetroot, et al. Given they were the ones in charge at the time.
Or are you going to tell us it was all albos fault?

Trumpster,

Is it not true that only your genius Fuhrer had the answer to Covid...Drink Pine-O-Clean

"MY" God?
Is yours different?
Is there more than one God in your view?

The Christian God is a triad of Gods, the one the three and the perfect fifth.

Our forefathers combined the three to form a harmonious chord, to conform to our Jewish past, and its insistence on the “non-other” than One God.

All true. And it will happen again because Australians mainly keep voting Labor or Coalition - both of whom behaved very badly in regard to human rights and the economy. The Morrison federal government came up with the ridiculous federal "cabinet" to take the heat off themselves, and the states behaved more like dictators than people elected to serve. Since then, the political class has done its utmost to block a real enquiry into their appalling behaviour. Some of them should have been sent to trial over their behaviour.

Don't moan about it. Do something about it at the coming election. Don't waste your vote on people you know are scumbags. How bad do the bastards have to get before you wake up!

mhaze,

You're just rewriting history and adding a dose of outrage and emotional manipulation. Yes, governments made mistakes, but acting like it was some grand scheme instead of people trying to manage a crisis with limited info is dishonest.

First off, you omitted the bit about how police used rubber bullets and pepper balls on protesters in Melbourne, which they do in other situations too. And yeah, elderly people dying alone was heartbreaking, but the alternative was worse. Covid ripped through aged care homes in places that didn’t lock down, killing thousands. The goal was to protect them, not abandon them.

Lockdowns did slow the spread. You can argue about their long-term effects, but saying they didn’t work at all? That’s just false. And vaccines? Nobody “lied” about them. Early on, they were great at stopping infection with the original strain. Then new variants came along, and their effectiveness against infection dropped - but they still massively reduced severe illness and death. That’s not deception - it's just how evolving science works.

Take masks, for example. Early on, the messaging was a mess, but the reason they didn’t push them at first was because hospitals were desperate for supplies. Once the stock levels increased, they changed their advice based on new information. That’s not lying - that’s just responding to the situation as it evolved.

And Your claim that “even the New York Times admits they lied about Covid origins” is a total fabrication. The lab leak theory was dismissed early on because there wasn’t strong evidence for it. Some agencies now say it’s plausible, but it’s still not proven. That’s not a cover-up - it’s just how science investigates things.

I get that people are frustrated with how things played out, but twisting the past into some doomsday narrative doesn’t help. Mistakes were made, but acting like the whole Covid response was a scam? That’s just rewriting history.

Dear John,

You said:

«Once the stock levels increased, they changed their advice based on new information. That’s not lying - that’s just responding to the situation as it evolved.»

I have no issue with the contents of these messages, only with you (and government) falsely labelling them as "advice".

An advice is, by definition, for the benefit of the one receiving it.
Wearing a mask was a good idea both before and after - the virus hasn't changed,
only they initially did not have enough masks,
so they told people not to wear them:
not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of their own systems.
The only deception there was, then, in masquerading their orders/instructions as "advice".

Dear Dan,

«The Christian God is a triad of Gods, the one the three and the perfect fifth.

Our forefathers combined the three to form a harmonious chord, to conform to our Jewish past, and its insistence on the “non-other” than One God.»

So your forefathers wanted to be nice to the Jews, but deep inside they (and yourself, I presume) kept believing in three gods.

Then tell me please, who coordinates between these three? suppose these three gods fail to agree, suppose they have an argument, then who arbitrates between them? a fourth god perhaps? the splendid seventh (yes I can actually hear inside that unresolved sound)?

AC

"57 per cent of Australians still want Covid vaccine mandate"

Yet less than 15% are up-to-date with their own booster shots. Those two things don't gel.

___________________________________________________________________-

mikk,

"Or are you going to tell us it was all albos fault?"

Well I didn't mention any politicians. In the main I don't blame the pollies this time. Its was the health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry that lead the politicians and therefore most of society down the garden path. The politicians were just mouthing what they'd been misinformed about.

_____________________________________________________________________-

"Drink Pine-O-Clean"

I've shown Paul several times that Trump said nothing of the sort. But the issue is either too complex for Paul to follow or he really doesn't care about the facts. Or all of the above.

__________________________________________________________________

John Daysh

It is now clear that the authorities knew from an early stage that the virus was a lab leak, not natural, but that those who had a part in funding said lab were desperate to hide that truth.

Masks - if masks worked then it was a lie to say otherwise just because you wanted to protect supply. But since we now know they were largely ineffective (or worse) it is clear that the authorities only wanted to enforce their use as a placebo measure.

Vaccines- it was claimed at the outset that vaccines would stop people getting the virus and stop the spread. Neither was true. The authorities now admit it. The vaccine manufacturers now confirm that that was never the point of the vaccines and that they didn't even bother to do studies on whether it stopped transmission because they knew it wouldn't. Yet the whole vaccine mandate mantra was based on protecting others by being vaccinated. It was a lie.

Finally, lying is one thing. But even worse was the way the authorities and media actively sought to cancel, discredit and censor those who, from the outset, saw and tired to get the truth out.

mhaze,

You’re throwing out a lot of claims here, but none of them hold up under scrutiny.

Lab leak? We still don’t know for sure where Covid came from. Some intelligence agencies say a lab leak is possible, others still lean toward natural origins. But the idea that “authorities knew” from the start and covered it up? That’s pure speculation, not fact. If there was a global conspiracy to hide it, you’d have to explain why multiple countries, including ones with no ties to Wuhan research, reached similar conclusions early on.

Masks? If they had said from day one that masks worked while knowing there weren’t enough to go around, you’d be calling that a scandal too. And no, masks weren’t useless. Proper masks like N95s did reduce transmission. Were cloth masks as effective? No. But saying masks were enforced just as a "placebo" is rewriting history.

Vaccines? Early on, the data showed they did reduce infection and transmission of the original strain. Then variants came along, and that changed. That’s not a “lie,” that’s just how science works. And no, manufacturers didn’t "know" it wouldn’t stop transmission - they just focused on preventing severe illness in trials because that’s what vaccines are designed for. Later studies showed they still helped reduce spread, just not perfectly.

As for people being "censored," let’s be real - most of them weren’t exposing hidden truths, they were just wrong. Saying vaccines didn’t work, that masks were dangerous, or that Covid was a hoax wasn’t some bold act of free speech - it was spreading misinformation that put lives at risk. Being fact-checked and held to account isn’t censorship.

You’re twisting everything to fit a predetermined narrative. You’re not here to talk facts, you just want to be outraged.

Mhaze

Instead of intrigue, what’s wrong with identifying good old fashioned panic as a solution to your misgivings about official responses, (Official overreaction), a theory neatly align with that source of “official” panic we were all subjected to: (Paralleled, for good example, with a panicked response to imagined climate change, as an motivation for the idiocy of official reaction)? Over educated and inexperienced children at play in a big persons world, which they stupidly tore to pieces, and likewise continue to do so wherever their authority meets the pavement!

Yuyutsu

It’s very ingenuine to suggest the possibility of discord in the Christian view of the God-Head.

Maybe the archangel Gabriel could be representative of the sevenths, leading into the chord changes arriving at worship of the Triad of the God-Head . A vertical hierarchical view.

Yuyutsu

Not a slavish following of the Jews, no: But sympathy is more fitting. The Christian view of the Saviours arrival as predicted in Jewish texts, a view not accepted by Jews and Islamists alike.
Christianity is far advanced on both.

Christians are waiting around for the penny to drop with both groups of non-believers.

Yuyutsu

Think on this then.

Since the ME is engaged in its usual religious waring mentality, let’s describe the three antagonists as an ”imperfect” triad. Discordant. Let’s describe its structure as containing a dominant second, in place of say a third. We now have a conflict or challenge for the ranking of the one note. The resolution is likened to splitting the atom.
What resolution outside of an atomic explosion, will replace the dominant second with the harmonious third again? Netanyahu maybe; or Donald Trump, or something outside the box?

Dear Dan,

«It’s very ingenuine to suggest the possibility of discord in the Christian view of the God-Head.»

But I never claimed, nor believe, that there are three gods.

God cannot be limited in any way, God cannot be incomplete, but suppose there were more than one gods, then even the very existence of one other god would necessarily limit the other(s), by introducing something external to them and outside their control and by rendering them incomplete.

«The Christian view of the Saviours arrival as predicted in Jewish texts»

Based on mistranslation and misreading the Jewish texts out of context.

Note that I am not stating anything here regarding the Saviour's arrival, neither in support nor in opposition - only that this concept is not included in the Jewish texts and certainly not part of the Jewish texts that were already present at the times of Jesus.

«a view not accepted by Jews and Islamists alike.
Christianity is far advanced on both.»

Recent scientific research indicates that Islam started as a Christian sect, while Judaism as we know it today sprang from Christian influence over Judaic thought, both around the same time (approximately 800 A.D.). Jewish Messianism did not exist before that and Jews would have probably never imagined that concept had they not been exposed to Christianity.

«Christians are waiting around for the penny to drop with both groups of non-believers.»

I won't speculate on that, though those Christian denominations that understand the oneness of God, stand a better chance in that regard.

Dear Dan,

«Since the ME is engaged in its usual religious waring mentality...»

The ME wars are not and never were about religion - religion has only been quoted as an excuse.
ME Muslims in particular kill more Muslims than Jews and Christians combined.

John Daysh,

"You’re throwing out a lot of claims here, but none of them hold up under scrutiny."

Well you aren't scrutinising it, just asserting I'm wrong. That isn't the same thing.

"Lab leak? We still don’t know for sure where Covid came from."
Well I know that for some people the only evidence they'll accept is if Xi himself comes out and admits it (and maybe not even then). But over the past year, the evidence is mounting up. We now learn that German intelligence reached the conclusion that it was a lab leak very early in the piece but the Germans kept it quite. Ditto UK intelligence who we now know told then PM Johnson that it came from the lab. And we know that the US authorities were so concerned that the lab they were financing was the culprit that they hide the documentary evidence for it.

Yes, there will always be people who will refuse to accept the Chinese culpability here. But the rest of us live in the real world.

Masks. You are badly out of date. While its true that N95 masks, if used correctly, are effective, there have been any number of studies showing that, in the real world, they were useless and often counter-productive. If people adopted mask regimes like surgeons - put it without touching the gauze, never touch it again, make sure its tight to the face and remains so throughout, replace it after 3 hours, etc- then they were effective. But people didn't do that. They wore then all day, constantly adjusted them - we were even told to adjust them when eating or drinking - and constantly touched them with contaminated fingers. If they weren't tight to the face, so tight that they leave a crease, then they were ineffective. If they were used too long or touched then they gather contaminants and became vectors for the virus.

"Vaccines? Early on, the data showed they did reduce infection and transmission of the original strain."

That's just rubbish. Some told us that but it just wasn't true. That's my point.

I've already linked, in earlier threads, to papers from all sorts of people including the revered Fauci which explain why the vaccines couldn't reduce infection. In a nutshell, the virus enters through the nasal system, incubates there and is retransmitted from there. But the vaccine is in the blood and can't affect or alter what happens in the nasal system. Once the virus enters the blood stream to attack the patient the vaccine can go to work and is therefore protective of the individual - often highly protective. But it doesn't stop the virus from spreading and was never designed to do so, despite the claims of the authorities at the time.

mhaze,

You say I’m not scrutinising your claims, but all you’ve done is assert them with confidence and expect everyone to take your word for it. You know I can provide evidence for everything I say, so instead of asking for it, you pretend that I mustn't have it.

Lab Leak:
You claim German and UK intelligence "knew" it was a lab leak early on, yet… where’s the evidence? If it was some open-and-shut case, why haven’t those governments officially stated it as fact? Instead, we have conflicting intelligence assessments, with some agencies saying it’s plausible and others still favoring natural origins. That’s not conspiracy - it’s uncertainty.

And let’s be real: if there were hard proof, it wouldn’t be "we now learn" from anonymous intelligence sources - it would be global headline news. Instead, all we have is ongoing debate, and the reality is, we still don’t know for sure. That’s not an opinion, it’s just where the evidence stands.

Masks:
You’re arguing that because most people didn’t wear masks perfectly, they were "useless or counterproductive." That’s a ridiculous leap. Seatbelts save lives, but not everyone wears them correctly. Does that mean they "don’t work"?

Improper mask use reduces effectiveness, but to jump from "people didn’t wear them like surgeons" to "they were useless" is dishonest. Multiple studies confirm that, when used properly, high-quality masks reduce transmission. Even less-than-perfect use offers some protection.

And this idea that they "became vectors for the virus" ignores the simple fact that we were also told to wash our hands, sanitise, and not touch our faces. If people ignored that advice, that’s user error, not proof that masks "did nothing."

Vaccines and Transmission:
You say it's "rubbish" that early data showed vaccines reduced transmission, but that’s objectively false. Multiple studies in 2021 demonstrated that vaccinated people were less likely to get infected with the original strain and early variants, which in turn meant they were less likely to spread it. That was the basis for early public health messaging - because at the time, it was true.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

Did that change with new variants? Yes. Delta and Omicron reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection. But acting like the early claims were always false ignores the context. This wasn’t a lie - it was what the data showed at the time. Science evolves, and public messaging changed when new data came in.

Your “Nasal vs. Bloodstream” Argument (This one was funny!):
Your claim that vaccines "can’t reduce transmission because they work in the bloodstream, not the nasal system" is an oversimplification. It’s true that mucosal immunity (which nasal vaccines might improve) would be better at blocking infection at the point of entry, but that doesn’t mean blood-based immunity does nothing. Vaccines primed the immune system to fight the virus faster, reducing viral load and duration of infection, which in turn reduced transmission - even if it wasn’t 100%.

This isn’t speculation. Studies showed that vaccinated individuals who got Covid had lower viral loads and were contagious for shorter periods compared to unvaccinated individuals - especially with the early strains. That absolutely helped reduce spread.

So, no, it wasn't a lie. Early on, the vaccine did reduce infection and spread. Later variants changed that, but by then, the focus had shifted to preventing severe illness and death - which vaccines continued to do exceptionally well.

The real question is: do you actually care about the truth? Because if you did, you'd acknowledge that the science changed, rather than pretending it was all a conspiracy from the start.

You’re pushing a narrative that isn’t backed by any evidence. You want to claim certainty where there is none and dismiss decades of infectious disease research because it doesn’t fit your worldview. That’s not "living in the real world," that’s just picking the version of reality you like best.

This is getting ridiculous...

Masks... University of Waterloo (2021) study found most masks only stopped 10% of covid aerosol drops. Even N95 masks only stopped 50% of those droplets. "According to a study out of the University of Waterloo in Canada, the popular blue surgical masks made from cloth that were used around the world to prevent the spread of COVID were only 10% effective in stopping the virus."

The DANMASK-19 study found "Primary outcome: SARS-CoV-2 infection – no significant difference
1.8% in the mask vs. 2.1% in the control group (Odds Ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.54-1.23)"

"The difference in rates of infection between the control group (no masks) and medical mask wearers was 2.1% vs 1.8%, respectively.

Odds Ratio CI was 0.54 to 1.23, P=0.33.

No significant difference."

Incidentally, places like Facebook and the mainstream media sought to suppress these findings.

Vaccines.... "Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), admitted on Monday that the vaccines developed against COVID-19 were not effective at stopping infections and transmissions in the long run.

Testifying before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on Monday, Fauci insisted the vaccines helped protect against the worst aspects of the disease but were less effective in preventing infections."

"You claim German and UK intelligence "knew" it was a lab leak early on,"

No I said they reached that conclusion. We'll never 'know' because the Chinese are suppressing all evidence. Relying on that to hide from the truth is the opposite of fact-seeking.

" it would be global headline news. "

Even the New York times, which was at the forefront of protecting the Chinese on this, have now admitted they were wrong. Perhaps some day you'll catch up or catch on.

mhaze,

You cherry-pick bits of studies without ever engaging with what they mean in context. I don't think you've read any of them in full.

Masks:
You reference the University of Waterloo study, but you conveniently ignore that it also found that properly worn N95 masks reduced transmission by 50% or more. That’s not useless, and in real-world settings, even partial reduction in exposure matters.

As for DANMASK-19, the study itself warns against misinterpretation:

“The findings should not be used to conclude that masks do not work to reduce infection risk.”

It was not a study on community-wide mask mandates. It only looked at individual mask-wearing in low-transmission settings and didn't monitor proper mask use. Other studies (Bangladesh RCT, CDC reports, healthcare worker studies) did find significant reductions in transmission. Ignoring those while focusing on one study that had limitations is cherry-picking.

And no, these findings weren’t "suppressed," they were published in scientific journals and widely discussed. The fact that not every media outlet ran with them doesn’t mean a cover-up—it just means they weren’t as definitive as you want them to be.

Vaccines:
You’re taking Fauci’s quote out of context. He acknowledged what we already knew: early vaccines reduced infection and transmission of the original strain, but their effectiveness against infection declined with new variants.

That doesn’t mean they never worked, it means the virus evolved. Your argument is like saying “flu vaccines don’t work” because they don’t prevent every flu strain forever. The goal was never 100% infection prevention, it was reducing severe illness and deaths, which they did exceptionally well.

Lab Leak:
Now you’re saying intelligence agencies "reached a conclusion" rather than "knew," which is a shift from your earlier claim. If they conclusively knew, it wouldn’t be "leaked reports" and "we now learn" claims - it would be officially confirmed evidence. The fact remains: the intelligence community is still divided on this, which means we don’t know for certain.

And no, the New York Times didn’t make some grand confession. They reported on new intelligence, which still hasn’t proven a lab leak.

Try again.

Hi mhaze,
"Yet less than 15% are up-to-date with their own booster shots. Those two things don't gel."
- No, I don't really buy into that 57% number either tbh, but that's what the news is telling us to believe.

"It is now clear that the authorities knew from an early stage that the virus was a lab leak, not natural, but that those who had a part in funding said lab were desperate to hide that truth."

Oh, and I said from day one that I never believed the Chinese wet-market / bat story.
If one were to go back through my comments to that exact time, they see that's exactly what I said.

Sometimes it pays to have had a prior interest in conspiracy theories,
You don't buy into what the government tells you so easily.

And that's why I've never had a covid vaccine or booster
- But geez the government turned everyone into judgemental zealots at the time

John Daysh writes "but you conveniently ignore that it also found that properly worn N95 masks reduced transmission by 50% or more"

Earlier today I wrote " University of Waterloo (2021) study found most masks only stopped 10% of covid aerosol drops. Even N95 masks only stopped 50% of those droplets". Oh dear.

As I said, this is getting ridiculous. JD just wants to believe he wasn't lied to by the authorities. Unless a proposition can be proven 101% he declares it false.

Can we prove the virus was a lab leak? Well not to 101%. But the vast weight of evidence makes it highly likely to the extent of being the now working hypothesis of the various authorities and the research organisations working on combatting the virus. (As I understand it, research on the virus changes depending on whether it is natural or not). But JD will hold onto his beliefs until and unless the Chinese themselves own up - and probably even after that.

The vaccines, which were claimed to stop the virus, didn't, couldn't and weren't designed to do so. But JD so wants to believe the authorities who instituted the vaccine mandates to stop the spread that he demands proof at the 101% level to the contrary. JD is also deliberately misconstruing my point - the vaccines worked at the individual level and reduced the severity of the virus ONCE a patient was infected but didn't stop the patient being infected and didn't stop that patient from infecting others. I suspect JD understands this (otherwise I'm giving him too much credit) but just can't bring himself to admit it or that the authorities who pushed the vaccine mandates lied about it.

I'm sure those authorities would be touched at such unthinking loyalty.

mhaze,

You’re not even trying to argue in good faith anymore. Instead of addressing my points, you’re resorting to personal attacks and fabricating positions I never took. Let’s set the record straight...

Masks:
You act like you’ve caught me out by saying N95 masks stopped 50% of aerosol droplets. But reducing exposure by 50% is meaningful in a pandemic - yet you still call them "useless." Which is it? Either they work to some degree, or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

Lab Leak:
Now you’re claiming the "vast weight of evidence" makes a lab leak "highly likely." That’s not what intelligence reports say - they remain divided on the origin. Some lean toward lab leak, others still favor natural origins. That’s not proof. You keep insisting it’s "obvious" while ignoring that even the intelligence agencies themselves don’t agree.

And nothing, I’ve never said has even remotely suggested that I’d only believe it if the Chinese admitted it. That’s another strawman. My position is simple: if there were conclusive proof, we wouldn’t still be debating it. You’re free to believe whatever "feels right" to you, but that’s not the same as actual evidence.

Vaccines:
Again, you’re twisting my words. I’ve never said vaccines completely stopped infection - I’ve said they reduced infection and transmission early on, particularly before variants like Delta and Omicron emerged. And that’s exactly what the data showed at the time.

Yes, vaccines primarily protect individuals from severe illness, but early studies did show they reduced transmission by lowering viral load. That changed with later variants, which is why messaging shifted. That’s not lying - that’s how science works.

You keep acting like "the authorities lied," but your entire argument relies on selectively ignoring context and changing definitions when it suits you. If you want to debate honestly, engage with what I’m actually saying - not some cartoonish version of it.

I can see you're panicking now, though. You stop addressing your opponent directly when you know you're losing. So much for engaging in debates here to challenge your beliefs.

Dear John,

«You keep acting like "the authorities lied,"»

Well even if they did not lie about the medical and scientific facts,
they lied when describing their instructions as "advices" rather than as orders.
Their lies were in pretending to be our friends.

Mhaze,

You’ve been defeated by the cogent arguments of JD: So now would be a good moment to consider the arguments against your theory of conspiracy by the “Lesser Mortals” that in effect, the Authorities were well meaning in their endeavour to save the world, but succumbed to over-enthusiastic responses on too many occasions, coupled with the tendency to “panic” when things went unexpectedly wrong for them.
Lying to the Public is a perfectly human panic response; but lying is inexcusable nonetheless.

Yuyutsu
#The ME wars are not and never were about religion#.

Think on “Sectarian Violence “: Rife in all major religions, leading to senseless slaughter of the perceived enemy.
The Islamic Jihad underway in the ME, against Israel, is definitely a case of Sectarian Violence.
How could you mistake that obvious fact?

The Christian God Head:
As a Hindu, I’m astounded you criticise and mock the Trinity of Christian Gods, when the Hindu religion proffers the exact same view, and worse, with a multiplicity of lesser Gods in the surrounds?

Even I was willing to wear the mask in public.
It was common sense, I wanted to reduce the chances of both getting it, or giving it to others if I somehow caught it but wasn't yet showing symptoms.
- That said we didn't have restrictions for the duration some of the other states did.

Dear Dan,

«Think on “Sectarian Violence“»

Indeed, the name of religion is being abused as a convenient excuse for sectarian violence.

«I’m astounded you criticise and mock the Trinity of Christian Gods, when the Hindu religion proffers the exact same view, and worse, with a multiplicity of lesser Gods in the surrounds?»

This is a common misconception of Hinduism and it stems from two reasons:

The first is plain mistranslation: the closest English word for "Devas", or "Devattas", literally "the bright/shiny ones", is "Angels", not "gods". Angels are not God, angels serve God. Some Jews, Christians and Muslims worship angels too, and not all Hindus do.

The second is that, unlike Jews and those who follow their example, Hindus are not bound by the second commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image". While Hindu devotees may worship God THROUGH various images and endearing forms, these images and forms are understood to only represent God and are not considered as God Himself.

One may also worship God in a leaf or a flower, or the sea or the sky, or whatever inspires one to connect with God. Regardless of the object one chooses, all prayers do reach God.

In the Bhagavad-Gita, God in the form of Shri Krishna says:
"Even those who, endowed with faith are devoted to other gods, they worship Me alone, O Kaunteya, in an indirect manner." [Bhagavad-Gita 9:23]

John Daysh writes: "You act like you’ve caught me out by saying N95 masks stopped 50% of aerosol droplets."

No, I pointed out that you'd accused me of " conveniently ignor[ing] that it also found that properly worn N95 masks reduced transmission by 50% or more" when I had in fact made that very point on that very day in the very post you were responding to.

That you are now trying to fudge that tells me all I need to know about your ethics.

" while ignoring that even the intelligence agencies themselves don’t agree" (on the lab leak)

Who? Who are these intelligence agencies that still hold to the natural causes for Covid theory? You make these claims but never provide evidence.

" I’ve said they reduced infection and transmission early on"

I've said from the outset that they reduced the severity of the infection. But there is no evidence that they reduced infection rates or transmission rates in any of the variants. Indeed they weren't even designed to do that. You make these claims but never provide evidence.

mhaze,

You’re twisting words again instead of addressing the actual arguments, while pretending that I'm the argument. But I don't think anyone's falling for it.

Masks & N95s:
You’re nitpicking one sentence to claim some kind of "ethical failure," but the real issue is how you framed the study’s findings. You presented the 50% figure as a failure, implying that masks were ineffective, while I pointed out that a 50% reduction in transmission is meaningful in a pandemic. You didn’t "catch me fudging" anything - you just don’t like being called out for misrepresenting data.

Lab Leak & Intelligence Agencies:
You claim no intelligence agencies still support the natural origin theory? That’s just false. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reported in 2023 that U.S. agencies remain split - with the National Intelligence Council and four other intelligence agencies assessing that Covid likely came from natural origins, while the FBI and Department of Energy lean toward a lab leak (both with "low to moderate confidence"). That means the question is still unsettled, no matter how much you insist otherwise.

(http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2023/3705-odni-releases-report-on-the-potential-links-between-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology-and-the-origin-of-covid-19-1692377393)

Vaccines & Transmission
Your claim that there is "no evidence" vaccines reduced infection or transmission is demonstrably false. Early on, studies did show reduced infection rates, particularly before Delta and Omicron. A study in The Lancet found that fully vaccinated individuals had a lower risk of infection and a reduced viral load, making them less likely to spread the virus.

(http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-30992100768-4/fulltext)

Later variants weakened this effect, but the fact remains: early on, vaccines helped slow transmission.

At this point, you’re just making blanket statements without evidence while demanding evidence from others. If you want to debate honestly, engage with the facts instead of pretending they don’t exist.

Did you even read the Lancet article?

" However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people."

Repeat...."This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people."

"The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients, requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals."

Repeat..."Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals."

When you don't even understand your own sources and think they say things the opposite of what they actually say.... well it tells us all we need to know.

Mask - you said I ignored the N95 numbers when I'd specifically mentioned them. And are now trying to hide from that. The end.

“The Covid pandemic will be remembered not only as a public health crisis but as a profound moral failure. It exposed the terrifying ease with which democratic societies can abandon ethical principles ….”

“The response to Covid was less a triumph of science than a capitulation to authoritarian impulses, enabled not so much by tyrants as by the moral cowardice of professionals entrusted with safeguarding the public good – especially the medical elite”.

mhaze,

Did YOU actually read the full study, or just skim for quotes that fit your argument and hope that I didn't notice? Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out.

Early on, vaccines reduced infection and transmission. Studies from 2020 to early 2021 showed that vaccinated people were significantly less likely to get infected, meaning they were also less likely to spread the virus. That’s why early public health messaging emphasized vaccines as a way to stop the spread - because, at the time, they did.

Then Delta and Omicron changed that. Later studies, like the one you quoted, found that vaccinated individuals had similar viral loads to unvaccinated individuals, meaning the vaccines didn’t stop transmission as effectively for those variants. But this does not mean vaccines never reduced transmission - it means their effectiveness changed as the virus evolved.

So when you repeat, "Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals," you’re only telling half the story. This was not the case for the original strain or early variants, where vaccines did reduce infection and transmission. Cherry-picking later studies while ignoring earlier ones is intellectually dishonest, and it's certainly not what someone does when they're here to challenge their beliefs.

I already clarified the N95 issue. You listed the N95 data, but you framed it as if 50% effectiveness was useless, which is absurd. In a pandemic, even partial reduction in exposure matters. You didn’t "catch me hiding" anything - I just refused to let you twist the findings.

Instead of quote-mining, engage with the full picture. You keep presenting selective half-truths instead of acknowledging how the science evolved. You're drowning here and the panic is evident.

"Cherry-picking later studies"

But but but....YOU picked the study!!

"Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out."

Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that?

You just made it up and are now trying to hide from it. You're becoming quite expert at hiding once chipped.

" Studies from 2020 to early 2021 showed that vaccinated people were significantly less likely to get infected"

There was no general roll out of vaccines until early 2021. There were no studies done in 2020 or until mid-2021. Just another made up claim.

You're running out of straws to grab.

You said I "conveniently ignore[d]" findings about N05 masks when I'd mentioned them only a few hours before. You implied I was deliberately hiding information when I was doing the exact opposite. Why is it beyond your capacity to acknowledge that?

mhaze,

You’re trying to turn this into a game of gotcha instead of actually discussing the science. Let’s clear this up (again).

Vaccines and Transmission:
You’re saying no studies were done in 2020 or early 2021? That’s just wrong. Clinical trials happened in 2020, and by early 2021, real-world studies were already showing that vaccinated people were getting infected less often, which naturally meant they were spreading the virus less.

Take Israel, for example. A New England Journal of Medicine study from February 2021 found that Pfizer’s vaccine reduced symptomatic infection by 94%. Fewer infections mean fewer chances to spread the virus. This was before Delta and Omicron, when vaccines were more effective at preventing infection.

So no, I didn’t “make that up.” The data was there - you just don’t want to acknowledge it.

The Lancet Study:
You’re still acting like the Lancet study you quoted applies to all variants, but it focused on Delta and Omicron, which we already know had higher breakthrough infections. That’s exactly why public health messaging changed over time. Early on, the vaccines did reduce infection and spread. Later, that effect dropped as the virus evolved.

If you want to argue that vaccines never slowed transmission, you’d have to explain why transmission rates were lower in highly vaccinated populations before Delta took over.

N95s:
You keep dodging the point here. The issue isn’t whether you mentioned N95s - it’s how you framed them. You threw out the “50% reduction” number like it was proof that masks were useless. But a 50% reduction in transmission is actually a big deal, especially in crowded settings. The goal was always about reducing spread, not eliminating it the virus completely.

At this point, you’re just dodging and nitpicking instead of actually addressing the evidence. If you want to have a real discussion, let’s deal with the full picture - not just the parts that suit you.

"bUt BuT..." Yeah, nice try, mhaze. "But" nothing. Your replies reek of desperation.

Still ducking for cover?

You picked the study and then claimed I cherry-picked it.

You claimed it confirmed that the vaccines inhibited transmission in earlier variants. But you can't show where it says that.

"Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out."

Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that? I can't help but notice and point out that you've dodged that.

" that Pfizer’s vaccine reduced symptomatic infection by 94%." Correct. But that's got nothing to say about transmission rates. Why does that simple point elude you?

During a European Parliament hearing on October 10, 2022, Janine Small, Pfizer’s President , testified in response to questions from Dutch MEP Rob Roos. Roos asked whether the vaccine was tested for stopping transmission before its rollout, and Small replied, “No… ”

But we are now back to your absolutist approach - if its not 100% then its not true. My original point was that the authorities claimed the vaccine stopped transmissions. We know now and they knew then that wasn't true. But you now want to pretend that because it might've sorta perhaps stopped some symptomatic infections then what I said was wrong. Not playing any more. The vaccine didn't stop transmission. Some, but some, studies indicated there might have been some sort of reduction in viral load, but tat isn't even close to the same thing as you're claiming.

The population was told that we had to get the vaccine to stop the virus. We were told that there'd be a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We were told that we had to get the vaccine to protect our family. But the evidence (want me to explain that word to you?) is that was wrong. But we had vaccine mandates. People who weren't really endangered by the virus were required to take a potentially dangerous medicine on the pain of losing jobs, careers and livelihoods.

They were lied to and no one was ever held responsible.

mhaze,

You’re still avoiding the real discussion by playing word games and shifting goalposts.

On the study:
You’re fixated on The Lancet study because you think it’s a "gotcha," but you were the one who introduced it as evidence that vaccines didn’t stop transmission. I pointed out that it focused on later variants, which is why it doesn’t tell the full story about early vaccine effectiveness. If you actually want to discuss whether vaccines reduced transmission early on, why aren’t you addressing studies from early 2021, before Delta and Omicron emerged? Are you deliberately ignoring that phase of the pandemic?

And yes, reducing symptomatic infection by 94% in early trials absolutely does affect transmission. Fewer infected people means fewer people spreading the virus. Are you suggesting that someone who never gets infected can still transmit a virus they don’t have?

On Pfizer and transmission:
Your quote from Janine Small about Pfizer not testing for transmission before rollout is misleading. Of course, they didn’t test for transmission in their initial trials - because vaccines are developed to prevent illness, not specifically to stop spread. But later real-world studies showed that vaccinated people were less likely to transmit the virus in the early stages of the pandemic. Why are you pretending those studies don’t exist?

You also keep saying "the vaccine didn’t stop transmission" - but who ever claimed it would completely stop it? Early messaging was based on the data at the time, which showed a significant reduction in infections and spread. When the virus evolved, so did the understanding. Why do you keep acting like changing scientific conclusions in response to new evidence is the same as lying?

On Mandates and rhetoric:
You’ve abandoned discussing the science and are now making an emotional argument about vaccine mandates. That’s a separate discussion. The core issue here is whether vaccines ever reduced transmission, and the evidence says they did - especially before variants evolved.

If you actually want to argue in good faith, why won’t you acknowledge all the evidence instead of cherry-picking soundbites that fit your narrative?

John Daysh,

" but you were the one who introduced it as evidence that vaccines didn’t stop transmission"

Wow, just wow. YOU introduced the study. I find it fascinating that people are prepared to just straight up lie here when its so easy to go back and see the truth.
You introduced the study and then, when you realised,(...well actually when I pointed out) that it didn't say what you thought it said, you've been trying to disown it ever since. All rather comical.

Then you asserted that there were parts of the study that supported your daffy claims but when asked for evidence of that ("Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that?") you reverted to the ad hominem. All very comical.

" Of course, they didn’t test for transmission in their initial trials - because vaccines are developed to prevent illness, not specifically to stop spread."

Oh good. That's what I've been saying from the outset - well actually for years now . Glad you caught up....or caught on.

"You also keep saying "the vaccine didn’t stop transmission" - but who ever claimed it would completely stop it?"

The authorities that I've been saying should be held to account. Also the authorities who remained silent in the face of outright lies.

eg Biden ""You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." (Hilariously he got the virus a month later).

""Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else."

/cont

/cont

"Vaccination is our way out of this pandemic—it protects you, your family, and the community by stopping the spread." Australia Government.

And plenty more. Worse, the people who knew that to be false remained, and in some cases were forced to remain, silent.

"You’ve abandoned discussing the science and are now making an emotional argument about vaccine mandates. That’s a separate discussion."

No, my original post was about the lies around lockdown, mandates etc. The science is settled (well for most!!) and you tried to change the issue to minutiae around percentages of n95 effectiveness etc.

Entire populations were lockdown. Careers were destroyed. People cancelled. Entire populations forced you take largely untested drugs. People with a few brain cells to rub together know this. The people who did it know it. That's why they hope it seeps into history.

mhaze,

You’re clearly more interested in “scoring” points than in sticking to facts. Although, I do like the performances you so often start your replies with:

"This is getting ridiculous..."
"But but but...."
"Wow, just wow."

Are they attempts to set the tone, or is it to dissuade lazy readers from feeling the need to go any further?

The Lancet study:
I mentioned The Lancet in the broader context of vaccine impact on transmission. You were the one who quoted from the Singanayagam study to argue vaccines didn’t reduce spread. I responded by pointing out that the study focused on Delta, not the original strain. Yet you claimed I introduced it, as if I were backing out of my own source. That’s false. I was replying to your quote.

And if you think that study applies to all variants, including the ones vaccines were first developed for, why does it explicitly mention “circulating variants” (i.e., Delta)? Are you overlooking that context, or just hoping no one notices?

The “lies” about transmission:
Yes, Biden and others overpromised. Messaging got ahead of the data at times. But quoting a politician’s soundbite doesn’t prove that scientists or health bodies engaged in a deliberate cover-up. Overconfident messaging in a crisis is not the same thing as deception. It’s like climate deniers who point to a bad quote from Tim Flannery pretending it debunks multiple fields science.

And you keep repeating that people were “forced to stay silent.” Who exactly? Because plenty of scientists and doctors expressed dissenting views publicly, and their statements are still easy to find.

Your broader claims:
You suggest the “the science is settled,” while ignoring early data that undercuts your position. People were “forced” to take “largely untested drugs.” The vaccines went through large-scale clinical trials and were tracked globally. You say you’re just seeking “accountability,” but what you’re really doing is blurring the line between fallibility and malice.

You treat every evolving guideline and imperfect message as a betrayal, but if you can’t distinguish between error, uncertainty, and lies, that says more about your mindset than what actually happened.

I cant wait for the next one when we finally get rid of the stupid people.

"Because what you’re citing only applies to later variants like Delta and Omicron, not the earlier strains, which is exactly what I pointed out."

Where? Where in the study you cited to support your claims does it say anything like that? I can't help but notice and point out that you've dodged that."

You make up claims that you think will fly and when bounced on it just pretend it never happened.

And then claim credibility.

Re Biden and co.... I said from the outset I don't blame the pollies. But where were the scientists rushing to set the record straight. When Biden and loads of other people in authority said things like "You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations" where were the 'honest' scientists or even the Big Pharma companies rushing to set the record straight? They weren't there because what Biden et al was saying was part of the narrative they wanted to push.

mhaze,

You're still stuck on the idea that quoting The Lancet study about Delta somehow discredits all earlier data. The study you cited - Singanayagam et al. - was conducted during the Delta wave, and the phrase “circulating variants” is right there in the text. That’s how we know it was about Delta, not the original strain. It’s not something I “made up” - it’s what the study itself states.

If you're going to claim it's definitive for all phases of the pandemic, you need to explain why it doesn't actually evaluate earlier vaccine impact.

You’re not “bouncing” anyone - you’re refusing to engage with the bigger picture: that vaccine performance varied across variants, and early evidence did show reduced infection and transmission, particularly before Delta and Omicron. That’s not pretending. That’s context - something your posts consistently leave out.

Now, on the Biden quotes: you claim you don’t blame the politicians, but then shift to blaming scientists for not jumping in fast enough to correct them. That’s not an argument, it’s hindsight outrage. Politicians oversimplify messaging all the time - on climate, war, economics. Are you saying unless a scientist publicly contradicted every misstatement immediately, they were complicit? That's a high bar, and a convenient one.

Where were the scientists? Well, many did speak out. There were constantly updated guidance documents, press briefings, published corrections, and clarifications. But you’re not looking for nuance - you’re demanding black-and-white admissions of guilt to support your idea that it was all a lie.

This isn’t about the absence of scientific input - it’s about your unwillingness to acknowledge it when it doesn’t support your narrative.

BTW I never quoted from the Singanayagam article but merely mentioned it as part of a quote from the Lancet article that you used and are now trying very hard to disown. But if I did use the Singanayagam article I'd have quoted from it that "fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts."

oops... I leave you to wipe that egg off your face.

mhaze,

There’s no egg on my face. There is, however, a big smile of amusement over how someone can think that continuing to dig will eventually get them out of the hole they've found themselves in.

You did quote the Lancet article containing findings from the Singanayagam study, and you used it to argue that vaccines didn’t reduce transmission. Whether you mentioned Singanayagam by name or not is irrelevant - the quote you used came directly from that study, which focused on Delta, not the original strain. That’s been my point all along.

Your latest quote proves it:

“Fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings...” - mhaze

Yes, that’s true - for Delta. Nobody’s denying that vaccine effectiveness against transmission dropped with later variants. But that quote doesn’t apply to earlier stages of the pandemic, where studies clearly showed vaccines reduced infection and, by extension, transmission.

So no “oops” here - unless you’re saying a study about Delta somehow disproves data from months earlier, involving a different strain, different transmission dynamics, and different outcomes.

If you want to have an honest conversation, stop pretending that one quote from one phase of the pandemic settles everything. You’re still cherry-picking the data that fits your narrative and ignoring everything that doesn’t.

Now, for the third time:
Are you willing to acknowledge that early real-world studies (like those from Israel and the UK in early 2021) showed reduced infection and transmission from vaccinated individuals before Delta emerged?

Or are you going to keep quoting studies from mid-to-late 2021 and acting like they apply retroactively?

How vaccines work....... http://tiny.cc/094e001

Since some think masks solve all problems..... http://tiny.cc/294e001

“If the last pandemic taught us anything, it is that trusting experts during a time of concocted crisis is as useful as interior decorating advice from Stevie Wonder”. (Fred Pawle, ‘Left's weird nostalgia for pandemic’, 27/3/25).

All we need to do in the case of the next “pandemic” the usual suspects bang on about when they have nothing better to do, is “ …. not believe a thing the political, media and medical establishment tells us – and simply get on with our lives instead”.