Hey SteeleRedux,

All I can say to you on the matter is that I don't trust any of those people with my health.
What they want to do is normalise fast tracking.
I'm not sure that's in anyones best interests.
- And it seems to me they have other agendas.

http://odysee.com/@Housatonic:0/ep-74-a-185:5?src=open
I've shared this video above numerous times.
It's been removed from youtube now, but everyone should watch it.
It's a long video, and it's slow to start but the info in there you wont get elsewhere.

I don't trust these people.
I don't trust Fauci, Lederberg, Southam, Clinton, Biden, or any of the people from Georgetown University.
I don't trust Bill Gates when he says he wants to reduce global population, and his father was a eugenicist who worked for Planned Parenthood.
I don't trust the pharmaceutical companies, and I think all the medical 'experts' are just plebs following other peoples orders and directives.

I'm sorry I just don't trust any of this.
I want to see how you're all doing 5 or 10 years down the track after the jab.

You say maybe I'll change my mind.
Well if I do, it will be because they're covertly spiked the water supply with drugs to make me see things more 'your way'.

- Though I'm a person of ethics, and I don't see how it will work on me.

http://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/

"Now you might not have asked for other to have a vaccine on your behalf but you sure as hell stand to be the beneficiary of it, so a little gratitude regardless wouldn't go astray."

I'd love to be able to show you gratitude, for what you may see as 'doing your part' for the good of the nation, and for me.

Honestly I would, if I could, but I just don't trust any of it.

How do I benefit if you get the jab?
Tell me, so I can see it your way.
How do we get herd immunity, if the vaccine doesn't make one immune?

Look at us all fighting amongst ourselves.

"In terms of the sheer number of 'test' subjects I would venture that very few vaccines would have had validations the prime 4 Covid ones have had."

Fauci unable to recruit 3400 volunteers for "allergic reactions" study of COVID-19 vaccines
http://brassballs.blog/home/nih-niaid-ap-associated-press-fauci-unable-recruit-3400-volunteers-allergic-reactions-psychological-study-covid-19-vaccines-side-effects

"Drugmakers and the government are immune from liability because the vaccines are experimental."

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-56901353
"Dr Kate Clancy, a medical anthropologist, shared on Twitter her experience of an unusually heavy period following the Moderna vaccine, and received dozens of similar accounts in response. With former colleague Dr Katharine Lee, she launched a survey documenting people's experiences."

Increased incidence of first-trimester miscarriage during the COVID-19 pandemic
http://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.23655

Here's the CDC's statement in regards to aquiring Covid 19 after vaccination.
http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effectiveness/why-measure-effectiveness/breakthrough-cases.html

"COVID-19 vaccines are effective. However, a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it. These are called “vaccine breakthrough cases.” This means that while people who have been vaccinated are much less likely to get sick, it will still happen in some cases. It’s also possible that some fully vaccinated people might have infections, but not have symptoms (asymptomatic infections). Experts continue to study how common these cases are."

Millions of people are proving the value of the vaccines everyday. Through vaccination they continue to live, rather than die from a terrible virus that has claimed the lives of millions.

"Sovereign Citizens" and other Trumpsters can please themselves. They can take a dose of 'Pine-O-Clean' and wait for the Easter Bunny as recommended by Dangerous Doctor Donald.

SR wrote: "That [the fact that, in Australia, the under-50's are effectively immune to the virus]was only achieved because of the very lockdown rules you deeply reject."

Well that's just rubbish. SR just puts out these unresearched and anti-factual claims in the hopes that they won't be challenged because he hopes reality conforms to his fantasies.

Here's some data to try to help poor of SR. (Just a word on the data to help SR. I'll be using Case Fatality Rates - CFR- here, not the more useful Infection Fatality Rates - IFR - because as we saw earlier SR gets baffled by the difference between the two and becomes terribly confused.)

So, in Australia, people under 50 make up 65.6% of the population. But they made up 0.55% of the deaths AND, (the biggy) 67.55% of all cases.

So, and I'll spell this out because it will elude the innumerate SR, the under 50s WEREN'T protected by the lockdown, they in fact had higher case loads than the demographics would suggest. But their inherent safety as against the virus protected them.

OTOH, those over 70 make up 11.7% of the population and their case load approximated that at 12.35% of all cases. But they suffered 93.63% of all deaths.

As much as SR's fantasies want it to be different this was and is an old persons disease. Always was. And we knew this from very early in the piece.

The lockdowns didn't save the young, the young were never in danger. The correct policy was always to sequester the old, particularly the old who had co-morbidities and let the young continue with their lives. But government's painted themselves into a corner and are relying on the false hope of vaccines to get them out of it.

Dear Mhaze,

Why is everyone here talking of COVID just in terms of death?

Death is the least concern here because once dead, all problems are solved!

But for those who survive, COVID is an awful disease. Besides the immediate pains, limitations and shortness of breath, debilitating permanent damage can be done to each and every organ, most often the lungs but commonly also the heart and the brain.

Hospitalisation is also a terrible trauma, but the worst is the helplessness and fear that authorities can come and drag you from your home at any time, for no crime of yours, to lock you in a hospital or a quarantine facility.

This is why I am shocked by what you wrote: "The correct policy was always to sequester the old" - if you have any mercy, why not come and put a bullet in my head instead? It is even cheaper! Treat your old folks at least as well as you would treat your old dog!

Dear mhaze,

It is bewildering the lengths you are prepared to go to to construct any sort of crap and baseless argument to defend your idiocy.

I called you out as I have done so many times before and right on cue and off you go, pathologically ignoring the bleeding obvious, in order to shore up a house made with a mix of delusion and straw.

Of the 67 million poms nearly 5 million have caught the virus and 128,000 have perished.

If Australia had followed suit and not imposed timely and strict lockdowns we would have 50,000 dead. Sure the under 50s would likely have been under 1500 of these given the UK figures but they are still lives lost never mind those with long term impacts significantly eroding quality of life.

While we really don't know what the ultimate figure would have been the 5 deaths of under 50s in Australia's meagre case numbers is not a solid predictor.

One thing is certain though, even working off the 5 deaths figure in 30,000 Australia cases it is many times worst than the ordinary flu. It translates to 17 per 100,000 while the flu deaths of under 50s in the US sits at 3.5 per 100,000.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1127799/influenza-us-mortality-rate-by-age-group/

It is not just a bad flu as you once claimed, even in respect to the U50s. So is Dr mhaze's advice to under 50s is for them to forego a flu shot now?

Utterly ludicrous.

Finally your utter stuff up in knowing the difference between IFR and CFR with respect of the WHO figures was legendary. Doubling down now was never going to be a good look.