The Coronavirus Thread

[Scot Dutchy]

Are not all the people vaccinated yet Jim?
A campaign is now under way to vaccinate the street dwellers. Once the European Health Passport comes into effect the anti-vaxxers are going to find life a little restricted.

Given our low case numbers, and some anxiety over blood clotting, we've been a bit slow about vaccination, but it is ramping up now. My first jab next Sunday...

We are ramping up to 2 million vaccinations this week. My second is a week Friday.
Denmark is fully free of restrictions but that is a result of Danish society more than anything else.

[Hermit]

The vaccination program in Australia is terribly slow. The under 70 year old segment of our population has become eligible about two weeks ago, or so.

I get the first step of the 5G mind controlling nanobot installation next Monday. The second jab at the end of August will presumably activate them.

Mine will be courtesy of Astra-Seneca. Pfizer's version is rare in Australia and not available to most people who are more than 50 years old.

Admittedly, the clotting issue is a bit of a concern. 2.1 million vaccinations have resulted in 24 cases of blood clotting so far, but the risks of clotting is much higher, and its likely effects more serious, if you do get infected by the coronavirus. None of the clots caused by the vaccines have turned out to be fatal or caused serious health problems at this stage.

[Scot Dutchy]

We have little Astra-Seneca in stock and that is being offered to the 12 plus range. We have just started using Janssen (Johnson and Johnson) which is made here. Sometimes first out of the blocks can be a disadvantage.

[Brian Peacock]

At this stage of the pandemic, with cases still growing globally, vaccinating very low risk groups in the West means that higher risk groups elsewhere will have to wait longer before receiving some protection from the virus. This increases the risk of strains against which the vaccines are less effective developing, which in turn increase the risk globally - including in the vaccinated West.

[Scot Dutchy]

At this stage of the pandemic, with cases still growing globally, vaccinating very low risk groups in the West means that higher risk groups elsewhere will have to wait longer before receiving some protection from the virus. This increases the risk of strains against which the vaccines are less effective developing, which in turn increase the risk globally - including in the vaccinated West.

If it was as straight forward as that. We have discussed this before and when you add in the corruption factor do you think it will make any difference? There are no safeguards that the groups needing it will get it.
The strains problem is not such a problem as some are making out. Cases are officially plummeting now.
The dictators are holding onto there last vestiges of power. Ozland is a good example; five cases and they are going into lockdown. By now the tiny population of Ozland should have been fully vaccinated and enjoying total freedom.
This is a virus that will always have a risk element.

[Sean Hayden]

If true, then countries should donate more.

--//--

If the expectation is that the entire world be able to respond to pandemics more or less equally, then aren't you going to have to change everything?

[Scot Dutchy]

If true, then countries should donate more.

--//--

If the expectation is that the entire world be able to respond to pandemics more or less equally, then aren't you going to have to change everything?

How do you change state corruption? Donating more does not solve anything. Throwing good money after bad.

[Cunt]

If true, then countries should donate more.

--//--

If the expectation is that the entire world be able to respond to pandemics more or less equally, then aren't you going to have to change everything?

I think everything DID change.

Almost every major 'authority' has been embarrassed by this. The funnest one to see, is revealing how much of an 'authority' facebook, alphabet corp and amazon have become. While unelected, and not exactly virology experts, they all have decided to censor based on what they think is 'right'. Or maybe what their board tells them.

It shows best, how lots of folks just LOVE censorship, and authoritarians. People who would fight for the voice of the oppressed, would gladly sign in to facebook, after seeing them oppressing individuals, opinions or anything they wish.

[Cunt]

Project Veritas release...

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/bre ... iling-new/

Facebook has responded: "We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information." -Facebook company spokesperson
Two Facebook Insiders have come forward with internal company documents detailing a plan to curb “vaccine hesitancy” (VH) on a global scale.

The stated goal of this feature is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to VH comments. Another aim of the program is to force a “decrease in other engagement of VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.”

It was such a shocking revelation, that it moved not just one -- but two whistleblowers to come forward to Project Veritas, so the public could be made aware of this plan to stifle free speech.

One Facebook whistleblower said the company uses a tier system to determine how a comment should be censored or buried.

Comments that include “shocking stories” describing potentially or actually true events, or facts that can raise safety concerns” -- are demoted.

“True events or facts” that raise concern about Covid vaccinations are fair game to be demoted and hidden -- according to our source -- despite their authenticity or capacity to contribute to the public good.

“I have to do something,” one of the Facebook insiders said.

Project Veritas reached out to a top Facebook Spokesperson about these documents and received only a brief and broad statement in reply, that failed to address our biggest questions regarding transparency.

“They're trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” the other Facebook insider added. “If I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”

Just in case you thought the biggest players were not manipulating information.

Be complicit if you want, but a complicity theorist is just as stupid as a conspiracy theorist.

[Cunt]

If you'd kept abreast of the facts you'd know that the lab release hypothesis hasn't been 'denied', far from it...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -idea.html

On May 1, 2020, CNN reported that Trump had 'contradicted' the intel community by claiming to have seen evidence the virus came from a lab.

'President Donald Trump contradicted a rare on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community by claiming Thursday that he has seen evidence that gives him a "high degree of confidence" the novel coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but declined to provide details to back up his assertion.

'The comments undercut a public statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued just hours earlier which stated no such assessment has been made and continues to "rigorously examine" whether the outbreak "began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."

"Yes, I have," Trump said when asked whether he's seen evidence that would suggest the virus originated in the lab. Later, asked why he was confident in that assessment, Trump demurred.

"I can't tell you that. I'm not allowed to tell you that," the report read.

Looks like if Trump said something, it is shockingly easy to make a gullible populace believe the opposite.

Complicit in censorship, lies and media panic, but won't be held to account.

Those wealthy media investors are surely doing it all for the good of the people, right?

By the way, BP, did you fall for the 'very fine people' hoax? If so, when you learned the truth about it, did it change your opinion on Trump, or the liars who smeared him that way?

Don't answer if it is uncomfortable.

[NineBerry]

There's a difference between "It is possible that there is life on other planets" vs. "I have seen evidence that there is life on other planets. Aliens visited me and put probes into my penis."

[Sean Hayden]

--poor aliens

[Brian Peacock]

[Brian Peacock]

If you'd kept abreast of the facts you'd know that the lab release hypothesis hasn't been 'denied', far from it...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -idea.html

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

On May 1, 2020, CNN reported that Trump had 'contradicted' the intel community by claiming to have seen evidence the virus came from a lab.

'President Donald Trump contradicted a rare on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community by claiming Thursday that he has seen evidence that gives him a "high degree of confidence" the novel coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but declined to provide details to back up his assertion.

'The comments undercut a public statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued just hours earlier which stated no such assessment has been made and continues to "rigorously examine" whether the outbreak "began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan."

"Yes, I have," Trump said when asked whether he's seen evidence that would suggest the virus originated in the lab. Later, asked why he was confident in that assessment, Trump demurred.

"I can't tell you that. I'm not allowed to tell you that," the report read.

Looks like if Trump said something, it is shockingly easy to make a gullible populace believe the opposite.

Complicit in censorship, lies and media panic, but won't be held to account.

Those wealthy media investors are surely doing it all for the good of the people, right?

By the way, BP, did you fall for the 'very fine people' hoax? If so, when you learned the truth about it, did it change your opinion on Trump, or the liars who smeared him that way?

Don't answer if it is uncomfortable.

Here's the full text of my post...

...

Escaped...wuhan...are you still stuck on the blue-anon script denying the possibility of a lab leak?

...

If you'd kept abreast of the facts you'd know that the lab release hypothesis hasn't been 'denied', far from it, it's just that as an explanation it doesn't fit the available evidence as well as zoonotic transmission. Complaints that the lab release hypothesis is being unduly 'denied' are complaints that science has arrived at the 'wrong' conclusion - but holding that a certain conclusion should be given more priority or weight and then casting around for evidence to support it is merely the pseudo-scientific exercise of confirmation bias. Understanding basic scientific principles, methods and processes can help you here.

.. perhaps you can point to the part that's relevant to your remarks, as it's not clear from your reply. And in the hope of clarity you might like to take a look at this post where I deal with the confusion about what a 'viable' hypothesis is, and isn't.

N.B. It might also help if you didn't read my posts with your 'angry voice' as well.

[Cunt]

You can claim that it wasn't 'denied', and I believe you think it is that way.

But that article shows lots of stuff that looks like denial.

It's like the racism push by media. They get shit wrong quite often, but are too crafty to be caught overtly lying.

Great groups of people believe the same wrong thing, based on those 'reports', but the liars can't be held accountable.

It's a great scam, as long as the participants decline to highlight the media misdirection.