Covid-19 Welcome to Freedom

Remove this Banner Ad

And if 33 to 41% aren’t fully vaccinated (just the obverse of your statistics) and the unvaccinated in south Australia are only 12% of the population it shows that vaccination reduces your relative risk of hospitalisation.

Edit your attempt at misinformation was so predictable.
It's amazing that people so keen to "do their own research" seem to be so bad at it.
 
completely reasonable

I advocate this for people who need medical assistance related to smokes, alcohol, weight, fast food and other lifestyle choices

We have medicare for insurance but we also have responsibility
We also have some measure of 'disincentive tax' already factored in to tobacco and alcohol, and arguably a miniscule effect too on healthier food options given the items that are exempt from GST.

There is the risk of unintended consequence here too - unvaxxinated people may delay presenting to hospital if they need assistance which could lead to the requirement for more invasive treatment straight up, and further stress on the triaging system.
 
We also have some measure of 'disincentive tax' already factored in to tobacco and alcohol, and arguably a miniscule effect too on healthier food options given the items that are exempt from GST.

There is the risk of unintended consequence here too - unvaxxinated people may delay presenting to hospital if they need assistance which could lead to the requirement for more invasive treatment straight up, and further stress on the triaging system.

agree

I guess my position is the more one racks up in preventable bills, the more people pay. Further triage would mean they simply wait at the back of the cue in terms of resources.......no different to our military (a government medical system).

I'd even go as far to say, no jab.........get private health. As that is my position for alcohol, cigarettes and fast food related illness and measured by swiping the medicare card on transaction. Some say this is an invasion of privacy or similar but happy for the bank to know and to sign up for reward cards or check in via a facebook app or similar.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

My dad managed to catch Covid in hospital through no fault of his own.
He was being transferred to another hospital for a procedure, and as a standard procedure tested him. Positive. No symptoms.
So far he has no symptoms whatsoever, but is tying up a hospital bed. ( Procedure delayed until he has no virus ).

He's a walking ( sometimes walking ) pre-existing condition, so thank you AZ for keeping him safe.
 
.
My dad managed to catch Covid in hospital through no fault of his own.
He was being transferred to another hospital for a procedure, and as a standard procedure tested him. Positive. No symptoms.
So far he has no symptoms whatsoever, but is tying up a hospital bed. ( Procedure delayed until he has no virus ).

He's a walking ( sometimes walking ) pre-existing condition, so thank you AZ for keeping him safe.
Best wishes for your dad. :thumbsu:
 
My dad managed to catch Covid in hospital through no fault of his own.
He was being transferred to another hospital for a procedure, and as a standard procedure tested him. Positive. No symptoms.
So far he has no symptoms whatsoever, but is tying up a hospital bed. ( Procedure delayed until he has no virus ).

He's a walking ( sometimes walking ) pre-existing condition, so thank you AZ for keeping him safe.

Soz to hear that mate, hope he makes a full recovery.

If your dad was not required to be in hospital for his current condition, and is asymptomatic, would the hospital send him home for quarantine? Or would they tie that bed up because he is positive and poses a risk of infecting others?

Curious on the angle the hospital (and the system as a whole) would adopt on this, considering all the beds, icu and ventilators and staff under pressure.

Is there a rule or law that stipulates that if you get covid because you had to go to hospital for another reason and are otherwise declared fit to leave that you have to quarantine at the hospital?
 
So, apparently, this super duper infectious virus means double vaxxed are barely protected but it results in less restrictions.

Close contacts are no longer tracked and traced. Close contacts are no longer 15 minutes but 4 hours. Close contacts can go back to work.

Yet non-vaxxed that are not close contacts can't earn a living.

How does this make any sense?
It doesn't. This is about punishing non-compliance. Not about health.
 
Can someone explain to me how sorted hasn't been banned for blatant and continued deliberate misinformation?

For someone sooking about freedom of speech, you're spending a hell of a lot of time posting deliberately false or misleading information.

I suspect you're either too far down the rabbit hole to notice, or you're very aware of the total lies you're posting, I'm leaning towards the latter.
I'm taking the charitable view that he doesn't understand so we are in the process of providing education

edit: then yes I get angry with some of the s**t he posts and I respond with the derision it deserves (see my next post)
 
So, apparently, this super duper infectious virus means double vaxxed are barely protected but it results in less restrictions.

Close contacts are no longer tracked and traced. Close contacts are no longer 15 minutes but 4 hours. Close contacts can go back to work.

Yet non-vaxxed that are not close contacts can't earn a living.

How does this make any sense?
because * the non vaxxers. * them to hell.

i'm not interesting in facilitating their psychotic delusions.
 
Where are all the people requesting the source of your data?
As far as I'm aware its not data, just an abstract infographic/demonstration of how misleading the "but 60% (or whatever) of hospitalisations were vaccinated" line can be when used to question vaccine efficacy.

Pretty sure the math checks out lol
 
Last edited:
Well done on misinterpreting data (again).

What proportion of the population is vaccinated vs unvaccinated?
If all the unknown cases were vaccinated then the 10%of unvaccinated hospitalisations would be about right for the vaccines having next to zero impact even if it’s 89% as you would expect statistically the vaccines really aren’t helping much considering the risks associated With an experimental medication. Some of the rhetoric on here seems to be that 100% of the unknowns are vaccinated which is statistically highly unlikely.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Did you notice all the gaslighting but not one person responded to the content of my post.

So, apparently, this super duper infectious virus means double vaxxed are barely protected but it results in less restrictions.​
Close contacts are no longer tracked and traced. Close contacts are no longer 15 minutes but 4 hours. Close contacts can go back to work.​
Yet non-vaxxed that are not close contacts can't earn a living.​
How does this make any sense?​
It makes sense because the non-vaxxed have opted out of their obligations to society.
As a result there are consequences. Much better the selfish are barred from society than the non-selfish.

Also, preventing the non vaxxed from entering bars, shops, restaurants, events etc protects them from exposing themselves to the virus where there are lots of people. Catching the virus is much more likely to have serious consequences for the non-vaxxed. It’s like they are stuck back in early 2020, before vaccines were developed. It’s lockdown for the unvaxxed.
 
It's laughable that you have provided education. You consistently avoid evidence based debate by going off on one of your rants.
You are the one who misunderstands statistics constantly.
Rants are reserved for dealing with the psychotic belief that anti vaccination types should be free. The government has decided for now that they should not, and I do not give enough of a * to care about their so called rights. If the government changes its mind I will not be pressing for a return to vaccination mandates. It’s not enough of an issue for me. But I can’t let your trollery go unanswered.
 
Indeed the official line from Pfizer is two doses are not that great so what is vaccinated?

Pfizer are saying the seatbelts in the Pfizer car are defective design, they will have effective seatbelts in 2 months, but in the meantime why not equip your car seat with two defective seatbelts ‘it could work’

I am double vaxxed AZ, if a mandate comes out for a third I’ll book an appointment but keep deferring it until the effective vaccine referred to is released

If I get a third shot today and in two months the effective one is available but I have to wait 4-6 months since my last shot to qualify?

I’m not in a high risk group
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it's important to to look at what politicians don't say as much as what they do.

For example, they don't mention that there's a fairly significant trend towards vaxxed being hospitalised and ICU over non-vaxxed.

From NSW data


Can you please explain how the link you provided says anything of the sort?
 
As I suspected. Crybaby no. 1.



Says the bloke spending day after day posting deliberately false or misleading information. To what end?

What do you hope to achieve by posting the trash you're posting. You know it's false, you know it's going to get pulled apart the moment you submit your post, because it's always false or misrepresented.
 
Pfizer are saying the seatbelts in the Pfizer car are defective design, they will have effective seatbelts in 2 months, but in the meantime why not equip your car seat with two defective seatbelts ‘it could work’

That's not at all what they've said.
 
Wouldn’t say for definite if a third shot was useful. I read do it if your in a risky group

They've said that the existing vaccine is effective against severe illness and death in Omicron (and previous) variants.

Which stacks up with the real-world results in a number of countries.

Of course, an updated vaccine would be preferable as it can continue to be effective against severe illness and death, but also work against mild illness and even transmission.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top