I flew my son home from overseas business class at the start of the pandemic. I didn't know how things would turn out. Do you think I'm now beating myself up because, with the benefit of hindsight, things didn't turn into an apocalypse?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..FormulaNova said..Flying Dutchman said..
The tide has turned it seems.
I don't even need to watch this to know what it's about:
Clearly it is idiots turning around saying "you should have done this", "you shouldn't have done this", "I would have done...".
All complete bull****. Hindsight is 20/20 and anyone that thinks they can speak from a point of authority is a fool.
I heard Mark McGowan on the radio yesterday answering why so much was spent on RAT tests. He said pretty much the same thing; in that you cannot second guess these things.
Is that the difference between people? Some know that they couldn't have known, and the others saying what they would have done, after the fact?
Fools.
Be-jeeze, FN really ?????
$3m was initially authorised for RAT test spend in WA. It blew out to $580M (the cost of two new hospitals) without any further admin, oversight, review or assessment.
The Auditor General just published a report where they found (amongst other things) the spend on RAT tests was:
"without demonstrable evidence of clear, considered and co-ordinated planning or ongoing advice as to the necessity of the expenditure"
"I have never before witnessed such escalation in the cost of a program over such a short timeframe, occurring with a lack of due consideration of the impacts, or without a record of anyone pausing to ask what level of procurement was sufficient and whether this had been achieved"
...that the WA Dept. of Finance spent $140M on RAT tests without checking with the Dept. of Health about the fact they had already spent $440M and didn't need any more.
...and that about $370M of the tests will now be dumped in the bin, having already handed out as many as they could where-ever and to whoever they could off load them on to.
.......But... FN says this is all rubbish and the Auditor General is a fool.
Option 1) Believe what the independent Auditor General says in a report that took months to research and compile
Option 2) Believe the partisan politician trying to cover up how much he **** -up in a 3 minute radio interview
....only FN could go with Option 2).
You realise your option 2) also applies to the video FD posted?
But yes, I agree, pretty big cock up with expenditure there.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..psychojoe said..D3 said..psychojoe said..remery said..
No Association Between Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and COVID-19 Vaccination
So what you're saying is that although correlation does not equal causation, a lack of correlation proves the impossibility of causation.
What causation? Status Quo was maintained?
Pretty sure the last paragraph explains the findings pretty well.
No variation between pre-covid, pre-vaccine or post vaccine OHCAs.
Exactly. You're mistaking absence of proof for proof of absence. I really expected better of you, probably giving you too much credit.
Proof of what?
Maybe you could provide 'proof*' that unexplained cardiac arrests and deaths are occurring in greater numbers in Australians under 50 since February 2021?
Then we could examine correlations and other evidence to investigate if there is a link between Covid vaccines and unexplained deaths.
The letter remery posted stated it found no variation in OHCA rates Feb 21 -Mar 22. This is obviously not definitive. But is one piece of evidence that says, during the period where over 95% of Australians received 2 doses of Covid vaccines, there was no substantial increase in OHCAs observed.
Personally, I would be interested to see if there is any chang since vaccination rates have dropped and Covid cases increased. Unlikely but it would be an interesting thing to investigate
* Preferably not memes
Select to expand quotesnoidberg said..
Going mainstream.
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/mum-of-melbourne-student-who-died-after-lethal-moderna-booster-shot-testifies-in-parliament/news-story/8da760e457f9e316f6d21280764e9a50#share-tools
Regarding depopulation have you checked your swimmers? Get a booster then check your sperm count. Fast kill is too obvious, depopulation will likely happen in many ways to either make people infertile or die before retirement age. Died suddenly is likely an unintended affect of the injections. Its not just the injections that will affect our health it's the **** in our food, water, synthetic drugs for everything, wifi, 5g radiation, aluminium getting sprayed above us and in our childhood vaccines and if all else fails there is war.
If I'd known these vaccines could sterilise me, I wouldn't have got the snip! (I had an uncomfortable few days)
Synthetic drugs? Much prefer accurate, controlled and predictable doses rather than the unregulated, hit and miss natural drugs . I mean we all prefer aspirin in a pill rather than having to chew on or drink birch bark tea?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
I flew my son home from overseas business class at the start of the pandemic. I didn't know how things would turn out. Do you think I'm now beating myself up because, with the benefit of hindsight, things didn't turn into an apocalypse?
Did you think it was going to turn into an apocalypse ?
How long did you think this for ? And on what basis ?
You do know The Walking Dead wasn't a documentary ?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Did you think it was going to turn into an apocalypse ?
How long did you think this for ? And on what basis ?
You do know The Walking Dead wasn't a documentary ?
What makes you think there won't be an apocalypse? Some people think the pandemic is only the start.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said
Did you think it was going to turn into an apocalypse ?
How long did you think this for ? And on what basis ?
You do know The Walking Dead wasn't a documentary ?
Spanish Flu killed about 33 percent of th world's population including my grandfather. I wasn't going to take that risk with my son. How about you?
Select to expand quoteremery said.
Spanish Flu killed about 33 percent of the world's population including my grandfather.
33%? Wow that's a lot more than what the internet says.
'Estimates suggest that the world population in 1918 was 1.8 billion. Based on this, the low estimate of 17.4 million deaths by Spreeuwenberg et al. (2018) implies that the Spanish flu killed almost 1% of the world population. The estimate of 50 million deaths published by Johnson and Mueller implies that the Spanish flu killed 2.7% of the world population. And if it was in fact higher - 100 million as these authors suggest - then the global death rate would have been 5.4%.'
ourworldindata.org/spanish-flu-largest-influenza-pandemic-in-history#:~:text=The%20estimate%20of%2050%20million,rate%20would%20have%20been%205.4%25.
My bad, Spanish flu *infected* a third of the world's population and only killed 50 million. Reducing life expectancy in the US by 12 years.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
My bad, Spanish flu *infected* a third of the world's population and only killed 50 million. Reducing life expectancy in the US by 12 years.
Still didn't sound like much fun either way! 
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..remery said..
I flew my son home from overseas business class at the start of the pandemic. I didn't know how things would turn out. Do you think I'm now beating myself up because, with the benefit of hindsight, things didn't turn into an apocalypse?
Did you think it was going to turn into an apocalypse ?
How long did you think this for ? And on what basis ?
You do know The Walking Dead wasn't a documentary ?
To be fair, the initial and reports from China were apocalyptic. We watched on the news the Chinese government welding people into their homes, bodies in the streets. It scared most people.
Insane 5-10% death rates predicted. We soon learnt this was a massive load of bull. And there was nothing to be scared about, unless you were elderly and with several terminal illnesses
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
To be fair, the initial and reports from China were apocalyptic. We watched on the news ..
...Insane 5-10% death rates predicted. We soon learnt this was a massive load of bull
Argh yes... "the reports".
Wait....you mean the media reports ? The media reports from China. Not the report from the AHPPC or anything like that.
All your info comes from the daily news bulletin ?
news at six
first at five
first at four
news 24/7
no, no watch us, we have much better stories than them, we are so far ahead of everyone else we even provide you with the news that hasn't happened yet. New headline guaranteed every 4 minutes, just hit refresh, watch the ad and then get a new headline more juicy than the last.....
...chick chick boom
"Early projections of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted federal governments to action. One critical report, published on March 16, 2020, received international attention when it predicted 2?200?000 deaths in the USA and 510?000 deaths in the UK without some kind of coordinated pandemic response.1 This information became foundational in decisions to implement physical distancing and adherence to other public health measures because it established the upper boundary for any worst-case scenarios.
...
For the US estimates, the differences produce a 54-70% overestimation of approximately 1 million deaths. For the UK estimates, the differences produce a 51-68% overestimation of approximately 200?000 deaths.
...
Still, initial projections were commendable efforts that brought about public action despite more than 2 million deaths in the USA and more than 500?000 deaths in the UK being a significant overestimation."
www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00029-X/fulltext
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Spanish Flu killed about 33 percent of th world's population including my grandfather. I wasn't going to take that risk with my son. How about you?
The concept COVID-19 was going to kill 33% of the worlds population is insane. At what point did even the most pessimistic pandemic expert get remotely close to saying that ?
The worst predictions from any of the modelers was about 0.75%. And that was if there was zero response. And even that was a worst case from the most pessimistic and called out by the others.
CDC prediction in March 2020 for the US was <0.002% deaths in population under 19 and <0.02% in 20to49 age group, if there is zero response. Then 0.5% in entire population, with 80% of those in the over 70 age group, if there is no response.
The CDC also predicted the Covid would likely kill 5 times (or up to 10 times if you fudge the numbers) more people than the flu (if there is zero response to the pandemic).
So, how seriously do you take death from the flu ? Zero ? because 5 x zero is ... very small.
Still, by the time the CDC real numbers made it through the media, through the pollies and back through the media to the WA electorate it seems it had morphed into 33% certain to die even with a state wide lockdown and everyone having 6 shots of a yet to be found vaccine that doesn't do bugger all for most people anyways.
Be-jeezuz, I hope a nut never falls on your head. We'll all be locked down like a chicken-little panicking the sky is falling down.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"For the US estimates, the differences produce a 54-70% overestimation of approximately 1 million deaths. For the UK estimates, the differences produce a 51-68% overestimation of approximately 200?000 deaths.
...
Still, initial projections were commendable efforts that brought about public action despite more than 2 million deaths in the USA and more than 500?000 deaths in the UK being a significant overestimation."
www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00029-X/fulltext
From that report you forgot to quote :
"...Initial projections built worst-case scenarios that would never happen as a means of spurring leadership into action."
So, the "scientific" reports contained known lies intended only to drive whatever political response the author decided they wanted ?
I thought scientific reports were supposed to provide an unbiased analysis of the facts.
Science and advocacy are not the same thing.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..remery said..
My bad, Spanish flu *infected* a third of the world's population and only killed 50 million. Reducing life expectancy in the US by 12 years.
Still didn't sound like much fun either way!
Oh no, it would have been fine.
Unless of course you were one of the 1 to 5.4%. 1 in 100 sounds okay. 1 in 20 not so much. But these are serious numbers and this was at a time when there was large movements of people due to the war, but not as quickly as travel across the globe is today.
I guess whichever way we look at it, the same pandemic today would have better treatment and survival rates even without vaccines. Would I take my chance or take my chance with the vaccine? At 1 in 100 I would take the vaccine.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Carantoc said
Did you think it was going to turn into an apocalypse ?
How long did you think this for ? And on what basis ?
You do know The Walking Dead wasn't a documentary ?
Spanish Flu killed about 33 percent of th world's population including my grandfather. I wasn't going to take that risk with my son. How about you?
Aghh, numbers mistake aside, you are trying to argue logic with Carantoc. It doesn't work. He seems to work on the best case scenario. Best case for whatever twisted logic he is arguing.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Deaths per million population so far.
Sweden - 2,362
Australia - 778
I suppose we could have under-reacted and allowed three times a many people to die.
It would have been preferable. Although the main exacerbator of deaths was moving the ill into nursing homes so a lesser reaction could have saved more lives.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
....At 1 in 100 I would take the vaccine.
Fair enough.
But it was never 1:100. Never anywhere close.
So what then if I argue the worst case scenario ? (apparently for a change)
CDC worst case (and as remery pointed out - an inflated worse case primarily designed to sensationalize and spur leadership into action) with zero pandemic measures put in place gave you less than 1 in 5,000 if you are under 49 and of average health.
Given you were in WA already with border closures and mask wearing etc. the "zero pandemic measures" bit was removed and inflated worse case was long gone then 1:5,000 was seriously over the odds.
and if :
Chance of winning anything on the Saturday lotto is 1 in 55.
Chance of being injured in a car accident in any one year is 1:3,200
Chance of dying in a traffic accident in any one year is about 1 in 22,000
So 1:100 you take the vaccine. Fair enough
1 in 3,200 you still take the car. Fair enough
but ..... roughly where on the scale would you not take the covid vaccine ? 1:3,200 ? 1:5,000 ?, 1:22,000 ?
1 in Mr McGowan told me to on the radio this morning ?
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..FormulaNova said..
....At 1 in 100 I would take the vaccine.
Fair enough.
But it was never 1:100. Never anywhere close.
So what then if I argue the worst case scenario ? (apparently for a change)
CDC worst case (and as remery pointed out - an inflated worse case primarily designed to sensationalize and spur leadership into action) with zero pandemic measures put in place gave you less than 1 in 5,000 if you are under 49 and of average health.
Given you were in WA already with border closures and mask wearing etc. the "zero pandemic measures" bit was removed and inflated worse case was long gone then 1:5,000 was seriously over the odds.
and if :
Chance of winning anything on the Saturday lotto is 1 in 55.
Chance of being injured in a car accident in any one year is 1:3,200
Chance of dying in a traffic accident in any one year is about 1 in 22,000
So 1:100 you take the vaccine. Fair enough
1 in 3,200 you still take the car. Fair enough
but ..... roughly where on the scale would you not take the covid vaccine ? 1:3,200 ? 1:5,000 ?, 1:22,000 ?
1 in Mr McGowan told me to on the radio this morning ?
FN, just block him. Don't encourage him. Life's short
I highly recommend reading, "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable". a 2007 book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is a former options trader. The book focuses on the extreme impact of rare and unpredictable outlier events-and the human tendency to find simplistic explanations for these events, retrospectively. Taleb calls this the Black Swan theory.
The is a chapter where he asks what would have happened if an airline regulator had introduced compulsory locks on plane cockpits. What wouldn't have happened is 9/11. Would this airline regulator be regarded as a hero? No... he would have been fired because he introduced a great cost to the airlines for no reason.
Coincidentally the keynote speaker at conference I'm at said, "There is no credit for prevention". Maybe it was "Prevention has no value". I'll check my notes.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
From that report you forgot to quote :
"...Initial projections built worst-case scenarios that would never happen as a means of spurring leadership into action."
So, the "scientific" reports contained known lies intended only to drive whatever political response the author decided they wanted ?
I thought scientific reports were supposed to provide an unbiased analysis of the facts.
Science and advocacy are not the same thing.
I've been working off my phone so it's not easy to read. But I took the report as stating initials calculations were the upper limit of a worst case scenario where over 2 million Americans die because everyone is stupid and nobody wears a mask, socially distances or gets vaccinated. Happily there were not that many stupid people in America and the measures worked, so only a little over a million Americans died.
Select to expand quoteremery
The is a chapter where he asks what would have happened if an airline regulator had introduced compulsory locks on plane cockpits. What wouldn't have happened is 9/11.
It really doesn't matter whether you believe some crusty sand _______ decided to precisely collapse two over insured worthless buildings on a public holiday for the purpose of maximum death, or if you believe it was the nefarious act of others, one thing is for sure,if you believe this to be true you've never heard of a locksmith.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Carantoc said..FormulaNova said..
....At 1 in 100 I would take the vaccine.
Fair enough.
But it was never 1:100. Never anywhere close.
So what then if I argue the worst case scenario ? (apparently for a change)
CDC worst case (and as remery pointed out - an inflated worse case primarily designed to sensationalize and spur leadership into action) with zero pandemic measures put in place gave you less than 1 in 5,000 if you are under 49 and of average health.
Given you were in WA already with border closures and mask wearing etc. the "zero pandemic measures" bit was removed and inflated worse case was long gone then 1:5,000 was seriously over the odds.
and if :
Chance of winning anything on the Saturday lotto is 1 in 55.
Chance of being injured in a car accident in any one year is 1:3,200
Chance of dying in a traffic accident in any one year is about 1 in 22,000
So 1:100 you take the vaccine. Fair enough
1 in 3,200 you still take the car. Fair enough
but ..... roughly where on the scale would you not take the covid vaccine ? 1:3,200 ? 1:5,000 ?, 1:22,000 ?
1 in Mr McGowan told me to on the radio this morning ?
FN, just block him. Don't encourage him. Life's short
No worries. He is still in the hidden list but sometimes people quote him and I have no self-control
Thanks for quoting him 
Select to expand quoteremery said..
I highly recommend reading, "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable". a 2007 book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, who is a former options trader. The book focuses on the extreme impact of rare and unpredictable outlier events-and the human tendency to find simplistic explanations for these events, retrospectively. Taleb calls this the Black Swan theory.
The is a chapter where he asks what would have happened if an airline regulator had introduced compulsory locks on plane cockpits. What wouldn't have happened is 9/11. Would this airline regulator be regarded as a hero? No... he would have been fired because he introduced a great cost to the airlines for no reason.
Coincidentally the keynote speaker at conference I'm at said, "There is no credit for prevention". Maybe it was "Prevention has no value". I'll check my notes.
I think part of the surprising thing about the 9/11 attacks was to use the planes as the weapon. In the past hijackers would only want money or to go somewhere, not to run the plane into a building as a targetted attack. Locks alone may not have worked as the pilots may have allowed the terrorists access if they had threatened people with knives. After all, they are just going to fly somewhere else.
But I think your/his point stands. A lot of these simple ways to avoid issues will be ignored or rejected. People often complain about places being 'the nanny state' but ignore that a lot of these rules are created to stop stupid people or even non-stupid people doing silly things.
I saw an abandonned car on the side of the road yesterday and the local council have put witches hats around it as an indicator that its a hazard. A normal person would just not run into the car, but the wrong person may just be stupid enough to run into it and then blame someone.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..remery
The is a chapter where he asks what would have happened if an airline regulator had introduced compulsory locks on plane cockpits. What wouldn't have happened is 9/11.
It really doesn't matter whether you believe some crusty sand _______ decided to precisely collapse two over insured worthless buildings on a public holiday for the purpose of maximum death, or if you believe it was the nefarious act of others, one thing is for sure,if you believe this to be true you've never heard of a locksmith.
Is this where conspiracy theories start? Lack of comprehension? Lack of noticing details?
It wasn't a public holiday. People were at work there.
The attackers would have been very surprised that the buildings collapsed. No one thought that they would, until they did. If they had, people would have been told to evacuate immediately, but they weren't.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
I flew my son home from overseas business class at the start of the pandemic. I didn't know how things would turn out. Do you think I'm now beating myself up because, with the benefit of hindsight, things didn't turn into an apocalypse?
should be kicking yourself you wasted money on business class ticket
Select to expand quoteremery said..
I flew my son home from overseas business class at the start of the pandemic. I didn't know how things would turn out. Do you think I'm now beating myself up because, with the benefit of hindsight, things didn't turn into an apocalypse?
Yeah, it was worth it. There were plenty of stories going around about people that packed up their lives in places like the UK, quit their jobs, ended their leases, packed everything up, and then couldn't get a flight out because the airlines were bumping people from flights that were not paying a premium.
The idiots amongst us were saying 'they can just get the next flight back home' but the reality was that airlines were prioritising those that could pay more and scheduling flights was a problem in itself. I have met people that said they were lucky and left quickly and others that have said they took ages to get out as they were always waiting for a phone call to say they were on the next flight. A hell of a way to exist if you are not sure what the world is going to do.
Of course, those of us with psychic abilities knew that it wasn't going to be a problem at all so we bought houses at the beginning, stayed where we were, stocked up on toilet paper and pasta straight away, and now some of 'us' are even posting to this forum
