Seriously thoughtful The NEW Covid Vaccination Poll

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Then Canada's numbers began to drift from the other two "Commonwealth Realms" into the same league as the UK, US, France etc. I still don't understand why. Canada's national leader is from the same side as New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern, and its federal structure is very similar to that of Australia - it could have cherry picked from both.

Unfortunately a lot of it's under provincial jurisdiction (the federals probably could override that, but they don't have the political will to) and some of the provinces frankly have incompetent premiers who care more about the profits of corporations than anything.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by haertig

Somewhere else I had read that the Europeans were considering export bans. But I can't find where I was reading that. And as I think about it more, it may actually have been India that was considering export bans, not Europe. I can't remember now, and I'm starting to doubt my memory of Europe as the potential banner since the idea it might be India has crept in.

Italy, with the approval of the EU Commission, blocked a shipment of 250,000 doses of the AZ vaccine to Australia.

AZ was supposed to ship 3.2M doses to Australia from Europe, but since Italy's newly appointed PM's stunt they haven't even applied for further EU export permits. Mario 'Macho Man' Draghi's action was stunt to win favour with the people of Italy - the Carabinieri subsequently found 25M doses sitting in the bottling company's warehouse.

With the blessing of Boris, AZ did send a shipment of 750,000 doses from the UK in January (??), but that wasn't disclosed at the time in fear of voter backlash in the UK.

India is still supporting COVAX, but maybe more selectively, 1.3 million doses are being (have been) sent to Papua New Guinea which is experiencing a surge in infections of the UK variant.

BR

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

You snipped this part of what I said. "And that "discussion we've all heard about" is the 94% hoaxer propaganda.

That's because I have never heard the term "94% hoaxer" and I had no idea what you were talking about. And I still don't. So, since I didn't know what it was, I didn't have anything to say about it. And to be honest, I didn't want to admit that I had never heard of it. Because around here, that's just opening yourself for an insult about your ignorance.

You haven't yet told me whether that this is or isn't the conversation we're having.

No, I don't think it is the conversation that we are having, since I don't know what a 94% hoaxer is. I just Googled "94% hoaxer" and didn't come up with any hits. So now I don't feel quite so stupid not knowing what you are talking about.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

That's because I have never heard the term "94% hoaxer" and I had no idea what you were talking about. And I still don't.

OK! Links below (adding the "COVID" search term would've got them for you). What "died with COVID not from COVID" conversation were you talking about, then?

https://www.aap.com.au/claims-on-cdc...t-say-experts/

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN25U2IO

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...are-inflated1/

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by haertig

That's because I have never heard the term "94% hoaxer" and I had no idea what you were talking about. And I still don't. So, since I didn't know what it was, I didn't have anything to say about it. And to be honest, I didn't want to admit that I had never heard of it. Because around here, that's just opening yourself for an insult about your ignorance.


No, I don't think it is the conversation that we are having, since I don't know what a 94% hoaxer is. I just Googled "94% hoaxer" and didn't come up with any hits. So now I don't feel quite so stupid not knowing what you are talking about.

I didn't know either, but I think you might need a new Google



Here's the Reuters article==>> https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN25U2IO

And here's the Scientific American article ==>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...are-inflated1/

BR

Ninja'd - my search didn't include Covid

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

OK! Links below. What "died with COVID not from COVID" conversation were you talking about, then?

I was speaking generically, talking about covid being the sole killer, vs. needing co-morbidities (most of the time) to be fatal. "Died WITH covid (and other factors) vs. Died OF covid (as the only factor)". That's the way I understand the concept. There was not a specific conversation that I was referring to. Just the concept.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

I didn't know either, but I think you might need a new Google

What the heck? How did I get zero hits, and you got two ... with the most relevant one at the top even.

This is the most interesting thing in this thread so far (for me at least - being a computer network/security/infrastructure engineer).

Let me try my query again. This time I'll run it with my script-blocker ("ScriptSafe" Chromium browser add-on) turned OFF.

...

Same result. Hmmm. I am using the Chromium browser (parent of Google's Chrome browser, but before Google adds on their spyware). Running on a Linux computer. I do also have ad-blockers turned on as well as blockers for other tracking devices. I have never seen any of this affect what a Google search returns though (except for the hits that are determined to be ads).

Strange. Oh well. One of those computer mysteries!

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Unfortunately a lot of it's under provincial jurisdiction (the federals probably could override that, but they don't have the political will to) and some of the provinces frankly have incompetent premiers who care more about the profits of corporations than anything.

Our state governments (Left and Right) are primarily responsible for our success in suppressing coronavirus.

The federal government has very little capacity to operate domestic services - it doesn't operate any schools, hospitals, prisons, public transport, etc. You might find the attached article interesting.

The state with 80% of cases and deaths has been run by the Socialist Left faction of the Labor Party for 17 of the last 21 years. To their credit, despite fierce pressure from the Conservative federal government, they held their nerve and maintained a harsh lockdown until there were no cases.

BR

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by haertig

What the heck? How did I get zero hits, and you got two ... with the most relevant one at the top even.

This is the most interesting thing in this thread so far (for me at least - being a computer network/security/infrastructure engineer).

Let me try my query again. This time I'll run it with my script-blocker ("ScriptSafe" Chromium browser add-on) turned OFF.

...

Same result. Hmmm. I am using the Chromium browser (parent of Google's Chrome browser, but before Google adds on their spyware). Running on a Linux computer. I do also have ad-blockers turned on as well as blockers for other tracking devices. I have never seen any of this affect what a Google search returns though (except for the hits that are determined to be ads).

Strange. Oh well. One of those computer mysteries!

I suspect its because meera and I are in Australia, FWIW I run Firefox on Win 10 with the uBlock ad blocker.

BR

[ownedbycats]

I got pretty much the same results as BetterRed. I'm on Vivaldi, which is Chromium-based.

[haertig]

meeera - from one of the articles you linked talking about the 94% hoaxers:

Shared thousands of times on Facebook, posts claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “quietly updated” its COVID-19 data “to admit that only 6% of all the 153,504 (U.S.) deaths recorded actually died from (COVID-19).” According to the posts, the CDC stated that the other 94% of people died from other causes, and that only 9,210 people have died from COVID-19. This claim is false.

I do not subscribe to that idiocy at all. That is a bunch of crap.

You may not believe me. So I will give you a reference that might further clarify my views on covid and vaccines (see below for the link). This is from a different website that I frequent. One that has a lot of good people, but several of these people believe in this 94% hoaxer stuff (now that I know what that is). Many are anti-vaxxers. I am definitely in the minority there, trying to promote the message "Yes, covid is bad. Maybe not as bad as the government is trying to tell us, but it's still bad. And you should take the vaccine." There, I am belittled for thinking covid is bad, and promoting the vaccines. Here (on MobileRead), I see it as you and others belittling me for the exact opposite reason - because you think I am minimizing covid. I will say on that other forum (link below), at least they are belittling me for the right reason. They are attacking something that I actually do believe. Here on MobileReads, I feel that I am being belittled for something that I don't believe. And I think this is because I bring up points that are not in 100% agreement with what you and others believe. We are probably 95% in agreement, but that 5% that's left - that level of disagreement is not popular here, and things can get brutal as people try to hammer you to 100% agreement.

Anyway, if you don't believe me and want some independent indication of my beliefs, go check out this thread:

https://www.homesteadingforum.org/th...9-alone.12647/

This thread on the other forum starts off with exactly the 94% hoaxer position. So it's a real good fit to answer your questions about me and what I might mean by "dying with vs. dying of" (although I already explained that in a previous post). It eventually morphs into a discussion about "the vaccine is doing more harm than good". Actually, it is a hard switch to that new topic at post #11, and at that point I get a bit more offensive (if that's even a possibility!) I don't believe that the vaccines are doing more harm than good.
The math used to justify that claim by one member there is laughable, and I point that out to them. Anyway, some time when you're bored, go read the thread. I have the same username over there as I do here (not that you couldn't spot my posts a mile away just from my "style" even if I had a different username!)

See if some of the things you think you know about my beliefs are not turned on their head.

[ownedbycats]

Apologies for anything I said that was mean. I get a bit defensive since it gets a bit tiresome to constantly hear about how we don't need to worry because it only affects people who are old and/or have preexisting conditions. And then the variants appear...

[haertig]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

constantly hear about how we don't need to worry because it only affects people who are old and/or have preexisting conditions

There is a big difference between saying it ONLY affects people in these groups, and saying it affects people in these groups HARDER.

The difference being, the former is false and the latter is true. So it is most appropriate to address what was actually said.

Many here seem to respond based on me having taken the ONLY case, when I think I have actually taken the HARDER case. If you, or anyone else can point me to one of my posts where I have said differently, I will gladly re-read my words and apologize as necessary.

I am not the best at expressing myself, and I do a lot of cut-n-pasting in my posts to re-word or rearrange ideas before it hit 'submit'. I have been known to rush this editing and end up posting incomprehensible gibberish. Or worse, editing something incorrectly and actually posting words that say the opposite of what I intend. (e.g., A good example of this is the sentence above where I used "former" and "latter". I have read and re-read that sentence half a dozen times to make sure I didn't get those words in the wrong order, because that would totally screw up my intended meaning. I hope I have them correct before I hit 'submit'!) I hope these kind of editing errors are rare, and I am not aware of where I might have done this here on MobileRead. But if someone points out where I appear to be lying based on what I am saying here, I will re-read, re-edit, and apologize.

And another thing - I do get really upset when I am accused of something that I think is terribly wrong and unfair. Like being called sexist or racist or accused of taking a side of an argument that I am not taking. I will get defensive, and will not hesitate to defend myself and my reputation. Relentlessly, if needed. I will match every attack post with a response post. I imagine this is not new news to anybody here.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

And another thing - I do get really upset when I am accused of something that I think is terribly wrong and unfair. Like being called sexist or racist or accused of taking a side of an argument that I am not taking. I will get defensive, and will not hesitate to defend myself and my reputation. Relentlessly, if needed. I will match every attack post with a response post. I imagine this is not new news to anybody here.

That's an awful lot of defensive words. I asked you, in a way I thought was very clear, to clarify your vague position; you got really, really upset about it, but continued to pretty much fail to clarify your position. So I'm out.

[issybird]

Let’s draw a line under the co-morbidity and related issues topic. Thank you.