The Reality of Living in Australia and Covid

[GordMay]

The clinical trials did go quickly [± 3 months vs 2-3 years], but that was because there was so much COVID around.
There were so many people in the world exposed to coronavirus, that the vaccine developers were able to recruit large numbers of people, in an unprecedented short space of time. And because participants were exposed to the virus in such large numbers, within a very short time, they quickly knew whether the vaccines worked. That’s why they were able to do it so quickly.
It’s a process that normally takes years, because it’s very slow to recruit people. In addition, there’s normally not much virus around. So, it takes a while to find out whether or not the vaccine works. In the case of COVID that happened in a very short space of time, because, unfortunately, we’re were in the middle of this vast pandemic.



Were the COVID-19 vaccines rushed? Here's how the vaccines were developed so fast

In a first for vaccine development, two COVID-19 vaccines were created, evaluated and authorized for emergency use in under a year. Despite the fast timeline, these vaccines went through the appropriate clinical trials, just like other vaccines before.

More ➥ https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/we...accines-rushed

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Wotname

SWL
...
Always thought there were too many Victorians anyway...

If other states don’t follow Victoria's example we are all planning to invade Tassie so Victorian numbers will reduce nicely .

Big hugs, if only long distance ones xxx

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The clinical trials did go quickly [± 3 months vs 2-3 years], but that was because there was so much COVID around.
There were so many people in the world exposed to coronavirus, that the vaccine developers were able to recruit large numbers of people, in an unprecedented short space of time. And because participants were exposed to the virus in such large numbers, within a very short time, they quickly knew whether the vaccines worked. That’s why they were able to do it so quickly.
It’s a process that normally takes years, because it’s very slow to recruit people. In addition, there’s normally not much virus around. So, it takes a while to find out whether or not the vaccine works. In the case of COVID that happened in a very short space of time, because, unfortunately, we’re were in the middle of this vast pandemic.



Were the COVID-19 vaccines rushed? Here's how the vaccines were developed so fast

In a first for vaccine development, two COVID-19 vaccines were created, evaluated and authorized for emergency use in under a year. Despite the fast timeline, these vaccines went through the appropriate clinical trials, just like other vaccines before.

More ➥ https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/we...accines-rushed

I wonder how many millions of people have been saved because mankind has this capability and was able to pull of this miracle?

[El Pinguino]

And also - which rabbit was the hat with the 'all children must be vaxxed to go to school ' pulled from????
Educatotors must be vaxxed https://www.hit.com.au/story/victori...d-staff-182958 sigh.
I guess it was not a rabbit - but maybe a fox that was pulled from.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I wonder how many millions of people have been saved because mankind has this capability and was able to pull of this miracle?

Good question [IDK]!


Just how many remains to be seen, but studies like Gupta et al [1] should continue to explore these avenues, and help scientists, medical practitioners, and the general public, to better understand the role of vaccinations in not only preventing illness and hospitalization, ed in the journal Health Affairs, estimates that, by the second week of May 2021, the early COVID-19 vaccination campaign, in the United States, had prevented almost 140,000 [139,393] deaths.
On average, US states experienced a reduction of 5 deaths per 10,000 people.
In addition, it may have prevented nearly 3 million cases of the disease.

[1] "Vaccinations Against COVID-19 May Have Averted Up To 140,000 Deaths In The United States” ~ by Sumedha Gupta et al
➥ https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10...aff.2021.00619

The coordinated and rapid COVID-19 vaccination campaign, launched in the United States late last year, has saved some 279,000 lives and prevented 1.25 million hospitalizations [from October 1, 2020, through July 1, 2021], a new study [2], led by the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) finds.

[2] “Deaths and Hospitalizations Averted by Rapid U.S. Vaccination Rollout”
➥ https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...nation-rollout
➥ https://news.yale.edu/2021/07/08/us-...ovid-19-deaths

[boden36]

Oh how all those selfish anti-vax whingers will squeal when things open up and the inevitable happens, they get sick with covid.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

I fully support choice. Resoundingly so.

In Victoria many can no longer choose if they wish to keep their jobs or be educated.

I see no point in dealing, in this forum and this thread, with philosophic questions of the sort made famous by the Algerian Berber known as Augustine who 'chose' (or did he?) to convert from Manichaeism to Christianity.

Augustine had only reached a low rank in Manichaeism. By converting to Christianity he chose the road that led him to be enjoy the life of a bishop. So was he making an economic choice (such as is made by 'economic refugees') or a religious/philosophic choice about whether to follow the Lord of Light or the new religion?

The government of Victoria has made a decision, not a choice, that I expect other Aus state governments to emulate in due course.

Who benefits from the decision? Every employer and every proprietor of a school/educational institution. The employers and educational institutions no longer have to make their own vax mandates and worry about how to police their mandate. The employers and educational institutions no longer have to worry about legal liability for their mandate.

What sort of decision was this? It's a decision of government, a decision by the State (meaning the partner of society in the state/society duality). It's not a philosophic choice.

What is the identity of the people affected? The Aus constitution makes clear that a state of the federation cannot discriminate against those who belong to a different state of the federation. So this applies to all in Victoria - all races, all classes of people who wish to be employed under Victorian government regulations and to attend an educational institution regulated by the Victorian government, and those who are not Australian citizens or are 'normally' residents of another state of the federation. (See section 51 of the Aus constitution).

Are there options for people who do not wish to be vaccinated? Of course. Oodles.

People can withdraw from employment under the conditions regulated by the Victorian and Aus govt. Many have done so already, according to the ABStatistic - Aus has had a surge of people who have withdrawn from the employment marketplace. This may have the effect of encouraging some of those people back to the employment marketplace.

People can withdraw (or be withdrawn by their parents) by educational institutions regulated by the Victorian govt. Not many people, including posters to this thread, complain about the government mandate for compulsory schooling (and the lack of choice that creates). Actually there are choices - including homeschooling that fits the standards set by the Victorian govt.

People can of course follow the law and campaign and vote, at the next state election, against the political party currently in power. Or just refuse to attend a polling place (and be fined) or make an informal vote. Again, I do not see many Aus people complaining about the lack of choice caused by the mandate of compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting.

People of course can also 'choose' to be scofflaws. Many already do: violent protesters who attack the Victorian police; people who fail to register to vote; people who live in the bush and have little contact with 'civilisation'; people who adopt a life of crime; and many more.

The coercive arm of the Victorian government, backed by a so-called justice system, is in place to deal with at least some of those scofflaws. Again, I've not seen poster in this thread or any Aus encouraging those choices.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

.......... Again, I do not see many Aus people complaining about the lack of choice caused by the mandate of compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting.

.........

A very minor (and perhaps pedantic) correction if I may - there is no compulsory voting anywhere in Australia. It is compulsory for most people to attend a polling place on election day but they do not have to vote.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Wotname

A very minor (and perhaps pedantic) correction if I may - there is no compulsory voting anywhere in Australia. It is compulsory for most people to attend a polling place on election day but they do not have to vote.

And you can even get yourself taken off the electoral role and never have to vote again

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Wotname

A very minor (and perhaps pedantic) correction if I may - there is no compulsory voting anywhere in Australia. It is compulsory for most people to attend a polling place on election day but they do not have to vote.

How can I say this politely??

Why give people a poor impression of yourself?

Why demonstrate that you are both a petty pedant and incorrect?

Ask yourself ... What are the names of the relevant pieces of legislation?

How does the Australian Electoral Commission refer to the mandate, which they oversee?

Did I not, in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, mention attendance at a polling booth?

For your reference: the name of the 1915 federal/Commonwealth legislation (no longer in force, but inherited by later legislation): https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1915A00036
For your reference: the relevant AEC publication for the public: https://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publica...ting/index.htm

[mat jam]

Against my better judgement i write this as i am a firm believer in allowing people to make their own choices and to live with them yet i can not get over the misinformation and pressure tactics being employed by certain individuals. Trying to report me to the authorities for speaking facts and being told to go pound sand cause they know they do not have a case against me cause they know what i say is facts, from a prolific poster who continually belittles posters for their lack of intelligence but did u graduate from one of the top three unis? I did so u can not use that one against me. Not a countryman. Not an ozzie but yes i am.

Please check out rense.com,

Left side column a few down for the er8ca kahn podcasts. She is an MIT researcher/scientist who knows her stuff. Everything she says is correct and can not be disqualified.

Also find,

Dr. Luc Montagnier nobel prize
Dr. Judy Mikovits

There are many who know the truth. All you have to do is open your eyes/minds to see the truth. If you have been shot and were lucky enough to have gotten one of the saline shots...then good for you.

Also on rense.com, a collater of msm banned stuff but from some of the best in their field you will also find an Ozzie police veteran who recently quit his job so he could speak out about what is happening.

Also, the NSW premier who recently resigned, the msm are saying her relationship with someone is the reason is false. She is being investigated for taking huge payments from pharmas and the severe lockdowns.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

How can I say this politely??

Why give people a poor impression of yourself?

Why demonstrate that you are both a petty pedant and incorrect?

Ask yourself ... What are the names of the relevant pieces of legislation?

How does the Australian Electoral Commission refer the mandate, which they oversee?

Did I not, in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, mention attendance at a polling booth?

For your reference: the name of the 1915 federal/Commonwealth legislation (no longer in force, but inherited by later legislation): https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1915A00036
For your reference: the relevant AEC publication for the public: https://aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publica...ting/index.htm

Well you have managed to say it politely.

By now, most readers will know I am a pendant, for better or for worse. I unsure if I am petty but I have no real way of knowing this and I have little control what other's think unless they wish to tell me.

You are correct that on occasions I am incorrect, rather more often than I wish but nevertheless this is not a bad thing as one of the more efficient ways of learning new stuff is to be corrected by others.

One the matter of compulsory voting in Australia I stand corrected. Your link proves my error; an error I have held for a long long time so I thank you for your consideration of pointing the error out.

However...from your last link

Tim Evans (Director, Elections Systems & Policy,
Australian Electoral Commission) states

Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote. It is, however, possible to determine that an elector has attended a polling place or mobile polling team (or applied for a postal vote, pre-poll vote or absent vote) and been issued with a ballot paper.

My emphasis added. I guess he should know and I guess it is from similar statements I had formed my previously stated viewpoint. If it isn't possible to determine an action, it becomes a rather mute point to say the action is compulsory.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

. . . By now, most readers will know I am a pendant, for better or for worse. . . .

Pedants of the world, unite!

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Pedants of the world, unite!

And true to form, in future I will say "Voting is compulsory in Australia and it isn't possible to determine if you vote or not but you gotta front up and be counted"

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Precautionary Principle.

I'm not arguing in favor of mandates, but I will sure argue against the Precautionary Principle as applied to this situation. I'm with Wotname -- why should we presume that the vaccine is riskier than the virus?

The Precautionary Principle seems to me to be aimed not at the benefit of people, but to save the consciences of members of the medical profession.

A thought provoking discussion. There is a lot to debate about the precautionary principle.

One thing I support is the need to act cautiously when adverse effects are unknown if the risks of not acting are low or also unknown. This particularly applies when an entire population is involved, as the stakes are then very high if an incorrect decision is made.

I think the above applies when considering COVID-19 vaccination for the healthy young so I would support the precautionary principle in this case.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Can you imagine running a military operation (what this pandemic is like in many ways) on the basis of something like the Precautionary Principle?

Of coures not. In war, you weigh the risks and try to come up with the best outcome.

Unlike war, medical focus is on preserving life, primarily of individuals, although community health is considered as well. Medically we don’t deliberately expose healthy individuals to unknown risk when known benefits, either direct or indirect, are low for that person.

Should we expose one segment of the population for the greater good of another? That is a moral debate. Whether or not it is possible to protect the segment at risk by other means must surely be a big consideration in this debate.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Perfect example of the misapplication of the Precautionary Principle was the kerfuffle over the AZ vaccine in Europe where a tiny risk of blood clots kept millions of people from getting vaccinated, causing God knows how many COVID deaths -- certainly orders of magnitude more than the number of people who might have died from blood clots.

I fully agree with this. A huge error was made in how this was handled and it undoubtedly cost lives by delaying vaccination. A classic example that errors are made medically.

From my perspective the problem seemed to be hugely exacerbated for political reasons.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It's the same with hypothetical long term side effects of the mRNA vaccines. Weigh that against the known risk of death from COVID, not even getting to long COVID and other semi-known and unknown long term consequences of the virus.

The known risk of death from COVID-19 is infinitesimally low for the healthy young. Do you have any figures to suggest otherwise? Why take any risk at all if the risk is in fact extremely low?

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Precautionary Principle presumes that you have a risk-free choice -- and in all aspects of the medical profession, there is no risk-free choice except with respect to doctor's consciences. Certainly not with regard to the patient's life or health.

I wasn’t aware that the principle presumes you have a risk free choice.

Every drug, vaccine and medical procedure comes associated with risk, and harm will occasionally be done (sometimes severe) from known risks. But all reasonable measures are generally taken to ensure the risks are known in order to estimate risk vs benefit and decide on the best course of management.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Is there any reason to think that there is a material risk of long term side effects from mRNA vaccines? We DO have reason to think that there is a material risk of long term side effects from the virus.

We don’t know either way.
What we do know is that the following vaccination, the spike protein that the body is induced to manufacture can accumulate in various tissues where it may not have following infection, leading to inflammation. Tissue damage may be temporary or permanent. It may induce other reactions in the body.

I know there are lots of “mays”, but we simply don’t know whether any of this can then have long term adverse effects. We can’t assume it doesn’t when administering this to people at low risk of severe disease, particularly if they are likely to have many years of life left.

No other vaccine or drug with a similar mode of action has been used in the past that we can compare it to, so we can’t even make an educated guess.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And although young healthy people are much less affected than older and unhealthy people, there is a still a significant risk of death and long COVID from the virus.

How would you define a “significant risk of death”?

“a team of researchers picked through all hospital admissions and deaths reported for people younger than 18 in England. The studies found that COVID-19 caused 25 deaths in that age group between March 2020 and February 2021. About half of those deaths were in individuals with an underlying complex disability with high health-care needs, such as tube feeding or assistance with breathing.”
I think it is very likely most of the other half where not entirely heathy as well.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w

Regarding long COVID, it is an issue that needs consideration. As with vaccine issues, much is still unknown except in the short term. It does seem though that it occurs primarily in those who have had severe illness or co-morbidities. Healthy children and young adults do not fit this category.

There are not many certainties in all this. There rarely are medically.
It was a good exercise thinking about all the points you raised.

SWL