Carlton Supporters Club

Funny you mention not knowing about being a clot candidate. 2 months ago I ended up in hospital with severe kidney stone pain and whilst scanning for the stone, they found an "old" clot in the portal vein of my liver. So Ive been on a course of Eliquis (apixaban) until it clears. Ive also had tests to see if its genetic or from an old op. I might give the Astrazeneca jab a wide birth even though they reckon there isn't a conclusive link between the clot and the jab..

Sorry to hear you have been ill mate, and hope you are all clear of that kidney stone, clot and on the mend. I'm sure 98-99% of the population will be fine especially younger folk with the astrazeneca vaccine but you dont want to be in that 1-2 % of potential problem candidates without some input from your own medicos on the risks vs benefits and like I said I would prefer my own GP to be doing the vaccinating and being available to monitor reactions etc than some grad doctor who struggles to find a vein or give the correct dose ie like that initial older patient who copped a double dose.
Imagine that was someone inclined to clots and they get a double dose by accident, there has to be more checks and balances other than just asking people to just rock up and accept what is being jabbed into you without proper analysis of your individual health. I'd just be asking your GP/Specialist what they recommend for you rather than being told by a Govt computer what you have been assigned...

You really don't get it, do you.

The vaccines, and for that matter, the widespread use of lock downs, should have been the subject of extensive cost-benefit analysis.

Perhaps you don't do that in science world, but in my finance/economics/business world they are front and centre.

Lockdowns - even though we knew better and had the fallout data, we never factored in the cost of the aftermath (other deaths. mental health issues, suicides, familial destruction, SME closures etc.).

Likewise with the vaccine - in Australia - where there never has been a  pandemic - why are we taking an experimental treatment (as it is still in Phase 3 testing) when we have ZERO idea of the short to medium to long term safety issues yet?

The bug will now become endemic, just like influenza, and fluctuate seasonally.

And you obviously never read the Great Barrington Declaration - which is simply the tried and tested pathway of dealing with a pandemic.

Somehow all the rules got changed with this far from novel virus. Why?

The $$$$.

Why did the CDC change the long standing method of reporting deaths in the US in March 2020? Without which, the number of CV19 deaths in the US would have been far, far less?

COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective

Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law
Volume 2:4-22
October 12, 2020

This is what's funny with you shills - you say 'follow the science, listen to the experts'.

Then science from equally qualified, often more qualified, types gets put up and you go - yeah, nah, ignore that and start attacking the man....again a lot of parallels with the AGW scam.....

The thing is Fly that some scientists, researchers, medicos, etc are more invested in economic and political outcomes than in health outcomes.  Sweden's Anders Tegnall is a prime example but he now admits that his approach was wrong, as do the Swedish King and PM.  Others have religious and/or philosophical beliefs that put them at odds with the results of rigorous scientific research.  What you end up with are opinions and/or declarations that are based on beliefs, not science.

Of course, I can trump your list with one name, Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty.  You should read the Doherty Institute newsletters for informed explanations of the efficacy of the COVID-19 measures.

https://www.doherty.edu.au/ 

Tegnell has said no such thing.

He has admitted they made errors in the care homes, that's it. But who didn't?

Attached is a terrific example of the gamesmanship that exemplifies this whole con. They're just not even remotely subtle.....

It's a bit hard to follow Dr Tegnell's arguments/statements because he changes the goalposts quite often.

As anyone with a basic knowledge of herd immunity knows, the percentage of the population that has to have contracted a disease or have been vaccinated against it varies according to how infectious it is.  For example it is >90% for measles and probably around 70% for COVID-19. It's also worth noting that herd immunity for novel viruses has never been achieved by natural infection.

In February 2021, Dr Tegnell told Swedish public radio: "If we were to encounter the same disease again, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done."

If that's not a concession that he was wrong, I don't know what is.

It's a bit hard to follow Dr Tegnell's arguments/statements because he changes the goalposts quite often.

To start with, it's worth noting that he was in hot water back in 2009 when he was behind the mass vaccination of Swedes with a vaccine that wasn't approved by the US FDA and was known to cause neurological disorders.  It caused narcolepsy in many Swedish children.

In April 2020, Tegnell stated, “In major parts of Sweden, around Stockholm, we have reached a plateau (in new cases) and we’re already seeing the effect of herd immunity and in a few weeks’ time we’ll see even more of the effects of that. And in the rest of the country, the situation is stable.”

As anyone with a basic knowledge of herd immunity knows, the percentage of the population that has to have contracted a disease or have been vaccinated against it varies according to how infectious it is.  For example it is >90% for measles and probably around 70% for COVID-19.  It's also worth noting that herd immunity for novel viruses has never been achieved by natural infection.

In late October 2020, Tegnell conceded that it would be "futile and immoral for a state to deliberately pursue herd immunity".  Tegnell also stated, "Throughout history there has up to now been no infectious disease whose transmission was fully halted by herd immunity without a vaccine.”

In February 2021, Dr Tegnell told Swedish public radio: "If we were to encounter the same disease again, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done."

If that's not a concession that he was wrong, I don't know what is.

By the way, Sweden, with a population of 10.23M, has had 707K COVID cases and 13,111 deaths.  Neighbours Norway and Denmark, with a combined population of 11.1M, have had 297K COVID cases and 3,0323 deaths.  Norway (population 5,3M) has only had 78K cases and 639 deaths.  Whichever way you crunch those numbers, Sweden's approach has been an appalling failure.  Now they are closing the border with Denmark, instituting lockdowns and just over 1M doses of vaccine have been administered.

As anyone with a basic knowledge of herd immunity knows,

The Brit Nic Lewis is onto it too.

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/why-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-is-reached-much-earlier-than-thought-update/

It's all about the heterogeneity of populations.

15% to 20% might even get the job done.....

Here's an interesting table - Sweden barely makes it into the top 20 in Europe yet is an "appalling failure".

When all these other countries ran with draconian lockdowns, masking, et etc - screwed economies, destroyed people's lives and livelihoods etc.

But Sweden is the failure?

You do realise Sweden has a very liberal reporting system too right - in many countries a lot of the Swedish deaths would not be attributed to CV19?

And their economy barely stuttered.

What planet are you guys smoking on?

Just going back to Fly's reference to the Great Barrington Declaration.  This declaration was released by a libertarian think tank and a small group of scientists, many of whom have no relevant experience and all of whom have their own particular barrows to push.