Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #4: Two weeks to flatten the curve!

Where do you stand with COVID-19 vaccines?

  • Fully vaxxed, awaiting the return of my freedoms!

    Votes: 28 30.1%
  • I've gotten my first shot. One down, one to go!

    Votes: 18 19.4%
  • I intend to get vaccinated soon (first shot)

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • I'll wait for more studies or doctor's advice

    Votes: 10 10.8%
  • I'll wait until old age or a safer vaccine

    Votes: 5 5.4%
  • I don't intend to get any Covid vaccine

    Votes: 26 28.0%
  • I'm a full on anti-vaxxer!!! Umad?

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • Total voters
    93

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got to admit, I haven’t had a cold/flu for over 2 years now. Used to at least get a few bugs a year - especially with young kids. Anyone else like that?
No. I got flu in 2017 and it was seriously bad, but the nasty cold I got around start of August last year was worse. Also got another cold not as bad, that put me in bed for three days in March this year.

Did many people get flu in Canada last year?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Israel covid deaths and cases sky rocket when they are all getting vaccinated and double vaccinated.

Strange.

 
This might sound rrrrrrracist, but many of these diseases are spread by international travel and tourism. Coincidence that since borders have been closed, colds and flu are down? I think not. I remember a time in Australia when flu was called the "Asian flu". Can't get away with that these days.

I'm related to a tattooist who was well qualified in health and hygiene (more money in tattoos). He had a regular with HIV but he wouldn't take appointments from international travellers. Nothing to do with race, he said it was just too risky.
 
Got to admit, I haven’t had a cold/flu for over 2 years now. Used to at least get a few bugs a year - especially with young kids. Anyone else like that?
I haven't had a cold/Flu for around a decade, I haven't had the Flu vaccine during that time, I got the Flu jab reluctantly 2 weeks ago.. only because I now have an aunt in a nursing home and they require it for entry.
 
The analysis was a week by week analsyis of deaths attributed to COIVD 19, compared to all other causes of death. The conclusions are valid for that period of study to week 32, 2020.

I know - all other causes of death, rather than a comparison to flu/pneumonia numbers (again - this all came from yebs question of why is covid any different to flu). I feel like we're going in circles at this point :drunk:

As you saw from the sample comparison, heart attacks, respiratory illness and flu and pneumonia causes of death went down in the same numbers as deaths from COIVD - 19 went up.

That's the comparison.

Well yes, of course they did - if condition was present and exacerbated by having covid, covid was the listed cause of death, as has been well established by yourself and others in this thread. I find that entirely reasonable, you don't - whatever (although, going by that rationale, pretty much no-one has ever died due to AIDS/HIV).

Point is that still doesn't explain why, all things being equal and absent of covid, the US just happened to experience a year in 2020 where their flu and pneumonia (combined) numbers were approx 4x normal averages. Likewise, it doesn't explain why we had in Australia roughly the same number of deaths from these respiratory problems in an open year as we did from covid in a lockdown year.
 
I am talking of flu deaths in 2020 from the ABS causes of death. Only two flu deaths after April 23, 2020 with a total of 42 for the year of 2020. Deaths from flu disappeared, just as deaths from COIVD started to get recorded.

Just a co-incidence I'm sure.

Of course its not co-incidence - the unbelievably tough restrictions and focus on hygiene effected flu just as they did covid. The fact that covid still killed 900 odd people should give you yet another clue regarding the difference between it and the flu.

If you want to lock people down from Jan 1 to Dec 30 every year and not let them go to school, make them work from home and not play sport, socialise, gyms, beaches, you still won't stop spreading of viruses. Lockdowns have never been to eliminate viruses and in previous "pandemics" with the similar SARS, MERS, other corona cold viruses and swine flu, were not needed for the viruses to disappear.

No, they're not needed to eliminate the virus. They're needed to stop an inordinate amount of people from dying at the start of a pandemic when very little is known about the virus.

Now, 18 months on, I very much disagree with the way they're being used - have said this a few times now.

Lockdowns might slow the spread of the virus down but then it takes longer to disappear down and it's questionable how many deaths decrease? In the bad flu year of 2017 even with flu injections, lockdowns might have saved 400 out of the 1255 lives of advanced aged and vulnerable people, bringing deaths into line with a more usual flu year. It also might have made the flu last two or three years and caused more deaths?

You're still taking data from a non-lockdown year and trying to apply it to a lockdown year like it means something. It doesn't.

Yes, lockdowns might have saved 400 out of the 1255. But we're obviously not going to do that, are we - 400 lives in exhange for all the ills you mention further down in your post. However, once you start getting to potentially saving orders of magnitude higher than that (just going by the US example), then it probably becomes an option worth considering.

Trade off is destroying mental health, immunity, business, financial independence and giving up free will for obedience and control because of the fear for safety. However suppression of expert information and scientific debate by a compliant press in propaganda lockstep and capture of regulatory authorities by companies with vested interests in making billions is happening.

Largely agree, certainly with the people and companies making billions off this.

I was prepared to accept lockdowns last year. 18 months later, not so much.
 
Last edited:


I love this man



Then you should appreciate his claims being tested.

 
As usual you are posting misinformation- the original publisher of the John Hopkins study has acknowledged its inaccuracy and retracted the publication per quote below.
It is getting very tedious exposing your “authority” on COVID as being nothing more than misinformation.
It’s ironic that you think your research is comprehensive, but in reality it is selective, and untruthful far to often for you to have credibility.

Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media.”


To their great credit the publishers go into great detail on why Briands analysis was wrong.


For your edification the article below will further correct your false conclusions on excess deaths.

Stop your gas lighting and Spinning, Spinner. She never retracted the study or said it was inaccurate, but I linked it from the way back machine because someone at Johns Hopkins took it down from their website.

As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

Not arguing with that, but this is a statistically comparison analysis and she is well qualified to do that.

I did say there were questions with her comparing week to week death counts, compared to the data from CDC based on "excess deaths".

The CDC use a baseline of expected deaths using trends from past data and compare that to the observed deaths. The CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, published on Oct. 23, reported that 299,028 excess deaths occurred from Jan. 26 to Oct. 3. About two-thirds of those deaths were attributed to COVID-19.

Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Slapped down for not following the script. Doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

SO depends how the causes of death are classified?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The quote was from Dr. Peter McCullough - internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Clinical Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX. Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the evaluation and practical application of medical evidence concerning contemporary issues in medicine.

Ends The Pandemic With 5 COVID Facts

1. The virus does not spread asymptomatically.

2. We should never test asymptomatic people.

3. Natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable.

4. COVID-19 is easily treatable at home.

5. The current vaccines are obsolete, unsafe, and unfit for human use.

That you chose to make this a hit piece of Naomi Wolf by someone asking for money in TRN, who regrets reading her so called feminist book and uses the article to discredit it because of her personal views on vaccines that are also discredited because of unsubstantiated twitter posts.

Then you ignore the actual expert quote, says more about you and your total inability to consider expert advice and information because it is suppressed by the propaganda media you lap up.

per the bolded- For a person that continues to ignore EXPERT ADVICE that does not fit his Conspiracy narrative, I think you are being a tad hypocritical.
 
Stop your gas lighting and Spinning, Spinner. She never retracted the study or said it was inaccurate, but I linked it from the way back machine because someone at Johns Hopkins took it down from their website.

As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

Not arguing with that, but this is a statistically comparison analysis and she is well qualified to do that.

I did say there were questions with her comparing week to week death counts, compared to the data from CDC based on "excess deaths".

The CDC use a baseline of expected deaths using trends from past data and compare that to the observed deaths. The CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, published on Oct. 23, reported that 299,028 excess deaths occurred from Jan. 26 to Oct. 3. About two-thirds of those deaths were attributed to COVID-19.

Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Slapped down for not following the script. Doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

SO depends how the causes of death are classified?

Another side show when you have once again been exposed - I'm not biting.

The details of Briands inaccuracies are listed in the article - the publisher was forced to retract the article.
You again have been exposed posting misinformation - end of story.

Now go and read the second link I posted to correct your misunderstanding about excess deaths.
 
Last edited:
One thing I'm happy about is despite not wearing a mask all year I've only been pestered about it on a handful of occasions, where I've simply just said I have an exemption that I really don't have.
Same for me, I do wear it at Coles but never outdoors, even though the official QLD Health website says there is no need to wear a mask outside if alone or with members of your household the vast majority of people have worn it outside during this latest lockdown in Brisbane... I think that is due to most people getting their Covid information from Kochie, Karl or Waleed and MSM news who revel in being doomsayers and panic enablers, to them 1 case is a crisis.:rolleyes:

On another note I haven't bothered to sign in at Coles over the last couple of weeks, just stroll in no problems.
 
Of course its not co-incidence - the unbelievably tough restrictions and focus on hygiene effected flu just as they did covid. The fact that covid still killed 900 odd people should give you yet another clue regarding the difference between it and the flu.

No, they're not needed to eliminate the virus. They're needed to stop an inordinate amount of people from dying at the start of a pandemic when very little is known about the virus.

Now, 18 months on, I very much disagree with the way they're being used - have said this a few times now.

You're still taking data from a non-lockdown year and trying to apply it to a lockdown year like it means something. It doesn't.

Yes, lockdowns might have saved 400 out of the 1255. But we're obviously not going to do that, are we - 400 lives in exhange for all the ills you mention further down in your post. However, once you start getting to potentially saving orders of magnitude higher than that (just going by the US example), then it probably becomes an option worth considering.

Largely agree, certainly with the people and companies making billions of this.

I was prepared to accept lockdowns last year. 18 months later, not so much.
Point I made was we (in Perth) didn't have unbelievably tough restrictions, in fact none at all for most of the year in 2020. However we had a nasty cold go through the community causing deaths, but flu and deaths from flu (only 2 after April 23 and none after July 2020) still almost totally disappeared.

Flu killed 950 old people in 2019. Same average age of death and almost same as 908 COVID deaths, with same average age. Far more similarities than differences and valid question was COIVD a rebranded flu? Personally I believe there was more connection to WHO orders from around April to classify pneumonia deaths as COVID - 19. It also decreased to 2080 from an average of 3326.

I agree with you that lockdowns should only have been used at the start, until we realised that projections were tens or a hundred times too high. But they weren't and the reason I keep comparing to a non lockdown year is that there would have been no difference in deaths and ages of deaths between the bad flu year of 2017 and 2020, IMO.

If therapeutic protection and early treatment was used (and it's still being suppressed) there could have been less hospitisations and deaths than 2017. Advanced aged and vulnerable people will die when challenged with a bad flu or bad cold.

Locking everyone up and injecting with experiential gene therapy that won't help the population reach herd immunity, because it only lasts 6 months and doesn't stop getting or transmitting the virus and shows serious adverse events, unknown long term effects and deaths, based on suppression and proper scientific examination of the facts is complete madness.
 
New England Journal of Medicine on July 21, found that after the two recommended doses, the effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in preventing symptomatic disease in the U.K. fell only slightly, to 88.0% against delta from 93.7% against the alpha variant


So this puts claims that Pfizer Vaccine is not effective against Delta Virus into a reassuring perspective, and thereby countering the continued misinformation that Vaccines don't work.
 
Last edited:
No. I got flu in 2017 and it was seriously bad, but the nasty cold I got around start of August last year was worse. Also got another cold not as bad, that put me in bed for three days in March this year.

Did many people get flu in Canada last year?

At the risk of banging on about this so did I. Badly. How can a cold be worse?

Monday= Woke with pain behind my eyes in my sinuses. Headache and dizzy. Chills, temperature and vomit by arvo.
Tuesday = Get up. Try to put on clothes and walk to front door. Almost faint = In bed. By afternoon my PJs were wet and my mattress and donna drenched = to the point you could wring them out like a mop.
Wednesday = Bit better. Went to docs. Her diagnsosis -Bang on) You have the flu. You will feel fine today but be tired tomorrow so don't over do it. Felf fine but went home and stayed home.
Thursday= Up at 9. Felt like a truck hit me. Slept till 5. Dinner bed.
Friday = Up @ mid day Went outside. Recovered.

Out over the weekend (went to footy back @ work Monday).


Point being these extreme cases and the symptoms they list sound much the same. It is a respiitory illness but not a death sentence.
Background = May that year had a nasty nasty cough. Couldn't shake. Work stress + travelled O/seas + jet lag + wasn't living healthy at the time meant I was susceptible to the nasty virus going round and eventually succumbed 4 months later where it hit hard.

PS no one dropped dead around me. Not family who visited/I saw nor patient in GP waiting rooms. Nor those I'd been in contact with the days before. Went o/seas once. Didn't hear of a global outbreak. Not the elderly relatives I was exposed to either.

Also influenza is not the same. A virus can only live in a host so mutates per transmission. The geniuses tested might be similar but eventually it passes through so many there is a super duper variant. Hence all flu is classified as "Influenza Like illnesses"

Covid 19 or SARs Covid 3 is a respiratory illness. (Possibly turbo charged in a lab). With similar properties symptoms etc to other strains. So a mild to severe respiratory Influenza like virus. In other word the ******* flu.

My advice = Don't go catching it it ain't pleasant but stay healthy, stress less, get fresh air and sun. You can't asymptomatically super spread, stay home if sick (thou if you get it for real that choice is out of your hands).

Also had it as a kid. I'm sure many round my age or older have the same experience. It's ridiculous the fear generated.

TLDR: It's the ******* flu. Just a very sevre strain that hit Italy and UK last year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top