I'm starting to wonder how many "people" on this forum are actually just Pfizer chat bots.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"A pandemic is basically a global epidemic -- an epidemic that spreads to more than one continent,".
The WHO's definition, because they are the W of the WHO.
But a pandemic was declared in Australia, by Australian authorities.
So you are saying it was a pandemic, widespread across Australia, spreading uncontrolled but it was not "rampant".
Or are you saying it should never have been declared a pandemic in Australia, only an epidemic ?
"An epidemic of the unvaccinated", not a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" ??
Edit:
I guess if you focus on the word "throughout" then yes, you could say that covid didn't run rampant "throughout" Australia, because it didn't occur in the back of FD's camper van or on an uninhabited island somewhere that nobody visited.
But in the context of the point I am not sure how it could be both an Australian pandemic, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled and not rampant, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
Hmmmm.... So we should wait for it to infect large populations, over large areas and let spread out of control in Australia before we take any action?
Or can we use the evidence provided by other countries and take action before it happens here?
Not sure what that has to do with the price of fish.
I thought the point in hand was about vaccines ability (or inability) to reduce the spread.
People saying covid did or didn't 'run rampant', despite or because large % of the population being vaxxed.
Of course we should be pro-active. But that's a different issue.
A pandemic isn't declared on a potential basis. It is only declared at the point it becomes a pandemic.
Cyclones only get named as cyclones when they become cyclones. Not when they are blips of low pressure that may turn into a cyclone.
And so if a pandemic was declared in Australia then the spread must have been significant and increasing out of control.
I am not seeking to draw any conclusion as to effect of vaccination on spread of covid, merely that I fail to see how it could be both a pandemic and also of limited spread, only increasing at a slight rate and fully under control.
Apologies, didn't see the Forest for the trees.
It was declared Global pandemic by WHO in March 2020, so does that cover Australia enacting Pandemic responses?
It seems so long ago
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
I'm starting to wonder how many "people" on this forum are actually just Pfizer chat bots.
Hey look, AI in action.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
I'm starting to wonder how many "people" on this forum are actually just Pfizer chat bots.
Hey look, AI in action.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Apologies, didn't see the Forest for the trees.
It was declared Global pandemic by WHO in March 2020, so does that cover Australia enacting Pandemic responses?
It seems so long ago
Only partially I'd think.
There could be a global pandemic of something, but the same thing not running rampant in Australia (think of many diseases from varroa mite to whatever).
So things like international border closures could be enacted in Aus under WHO pandemic status.
But lockdowns, vaccine fast-track approvals, state border restrictions etc. sat under domestic pandemic declarations.
If covid only occurred in Australia those sorts of measure may still apply without any declarations from the WHO or any need for incoming federal border measures.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..D3 said..
Apologies, didn't see the Forest for the trees.
It was declared Global pandemic by WHO in March 2020, so does that cover Australia enacting Pandemic responses?
It seems so long ago
Only partially I'd think.
There could be a global pandemic of something, but the same thing not running rampant in Australia (think of many diseases from varroa mite to whatever).
So things like international border closures could be enacted in Aus under WHO pandemic status.
But lockdowns, vaccine fast-track approvals, state border restrictions etc. sat under domestic pandemic declarations.
If covid only occurred in Australia those sorts of measure may still apply without any declarations from the WHO or any need for incoming federal border measures.
Looking briefly at Biosecurity 2015, it was declared Human Biosecurity Emergency for Human Corona virus with Pandemic Potential.
So (as I understand it) that allows biosecurity measures to be enacted to prevent outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic occurring in Australia
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Looking briefly at Biosecurity 2015, it was declared Human Biosecurity Emergency for Human Corona virus with Pandemic Potential.
So (as I understand it) that allows biosecurity measures to be enacted to prevent outbreaks, epidemics and pandemic occurring in Australia
Well, that would explain why they then distributed a vaccine that had immunity potential. 
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..
Not sure what that has to do with the price of fish.
I thought the point in hand was about vaccines ability (or inability) to reduce the spread.
People saying covid did or didn't 'run rampant', despite or because large % of the population being vaxxed.
Of course we should be pro-active. But that's a different issue.
A pandemic isn't declared on a potential basis. It is only declared at the point it becomes a pandemic.
Cyclones only get named as cyclones when they become cyclones. Not when they are blips of low pressure that may turn into a cyclone.
And so if a pandemic was declared in Australia then the spread must have been significant and increasing out of control.
I am not seeking to draw any conclusion as to effect of vaccination on spread of covid, merely that I fail to see how it could be both a pandemic and also of limited spread, only increasing at a slight rate and fully under control.
I'm thinking ENdemic refers to within a country and PANdemic means beyond a country.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..remery said..
"A pandemic is basically a global epidemic -- an epidemic that spreads to more than one continent,".
The WHO's definition, because they are the W of the WHO.
But a pandemic was declared in Australia, by Australian authorities.
So you are saying it was a pandemic, widespread across Australia, spreading uncontrolled but it was not "rampant".
Or are you saying it should never have been declared a pandemic in Australia, only an epidemic ?
"An epidemic of the unvaccinated", not a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" ??
Edit:
I guess if you focus on the word "throughout" then yes, you could say that covid didn't run rampant "throughout" Australia, because it didn't occur in the back of FD's camper van or on an uninhabited island somewhere that nobody visited.
But in the context of the point I am not sure how it could be both an Australian pandemic, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled and not rampant, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled.
I can be bothered looking it up, but I doubt Australia declared a pandemic in Australia. The Australian government might have agreed with WHO that there was a pandemic and it had arrived in Australia.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Carantoc said..remery said..
"A pandemic is basically a global epidemic -- an epidemic that spreads to more than one continent,".
The WHO's definition, because they are the W of the WHO.
But a pandemic was declared in Australia, by Australian authorities.
So you are saying it was a pandemic, widespread across Australia, spreading uncontrolled but it was not "rampant".
Or are you saying it should never have been declared a pandemic in Australia, only an epidemic ?
"An epidemic of the unvaccinated", not a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" ??
Edit:
I guess if you focus on the word "throughout" then yes, you could say that covid didn't run rampant "throughout" Australia, because it didn't occur in the back of FD's camper van or on an uninhabited island somewhere that nobody visited.
But in the context of the point I am not sure how it could be both an Australian pandemic, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled and not rampant, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled.
I can be bothered looking it up, but I doubt Australia declared a pandemic in Australia. The Australian government might have agreed with WHO that there was a pandemic and it had arrived in Australia.
Nah, it seems SloMo declared a 'national' pandemic, whatever that is:
"The first case of coronavirus detected in Australia was on 25 January 2020 in Victoria, Scott Morrison declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national pandemic on 27 February and World Health Organisation a global pandemic on 12 March 2020."
I am not sure how you have a national pandemic and then a global one, but I guess you can if your local epidemic is part of a global 'pandemic'.
But elsewhere:
"Declaration of human biosecurity emergency
On 18 March 2020 the Governor-General declared, pursuant to section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015, that a human biosecurity emergency exists because human coronavirus with pandemic potential is an infectious disease:
that has entered Australian territory andthat is fatal in some cases and..."
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..remery said..Carantoc said..remery said..
"A pandemic is basically a global epidemic -- an epidemic that spreads to more than one continent,".
The WHO's definition, because they are the W of the WHO.
But a pandemic was declared in Australia, by Australian authorities.
So you are saying it was a pandemic, widespread across Australia, spreading uncontrolled but it was not "rampant".
Or are you saying it should never have been declared a pandemic in Australia, only an epidemic ?
"An epidemic of the unvaccinated", not a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" ??
Edit:
I guess if you focus on the word "throughout" then yes, you could say that covid didn't run rampant "throughout" Australia, because it didn't occur in the back of FD's camper van or on an uninhabited island somewhere that nobody visited.
But in the context of the point I am not sure how it could be both an Australian pandemic, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled and not rampant, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled.
I can be bothered looking it up, but I doubt Australia declared a pandemic in Australia. The Australian government might have agreed with WHO that there was a pandemic and it had arrived in Australia.
Nah, it seems SloMo declared a 'national' pandemic, whatever that is:
"The first case of coronavirus detected in Australia was on 25 January 2020 in Victoria, Scott Morrison declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national pandemic on 27 February and World Health Organisation a global pandemic on 12 March 2020."
I am not sure how you have a national pandemic and then a global one, but I guess you can if your local epidemic is part of a global 'pandemic'.
But elsewhere:
"Declaration of human biosecurity emergency
On 18 March 2020 the Governor-General declared, pursuant to section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015, that a human biosecurity emergency exists because human coronavirus with pandemic potential is an infectious disease:
that has entered Australian territory andthat is fatal in some cases and..."
Lucky the governer general didn't need to understand the difference between a virus and a disease to make such a declaration.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..FormulaNova said..remery said..Carantoc said..remery said..
"A pandemic is basically a global epidemic -- an epidemic that spreads to more than one continent,".
The WHO's definition, because they are the W of the WHO.
But a pandemic was declared in Australia, by Australian authorities.
So you are saying it was a pandemic, widespread across Australia, spreading uncontrolled but it was not "rampant".
Or are you saying it should never have been declared a pandemic in Australia, only an epidemic ?
"An epidemic of the unvaccinated", not a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" ??
Edit:
I guess if you focus on the word "throughout" then yes, you could say that covid didn't run rampant "throughout" Australia, because it didn't occur in the back of FD's camper van or on an uninhabited island somewhere that nobody visited.
But in the context of the point I am not sure how it could be both an Australian pandemic, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled and not rampant, defined as spreading widely and uncontrolled.
I can be bothered looking it up, but I doubt Australia declared a pandemic in Australia. The Australian government might have agreed with WHO that there was a pandemic and it had arrived in Australia.
Nah, it seems SloMo declared a 'national' pandemic, whatever that is:
"The first case of coronavirus detected in Australia was on 25 January 2020 in Victoria, Scott Morrison declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national pandemic on 27 February and World Health Organisation a global pandemic on 12 March 2020."
I am not sure how you have a national pandemic and then a global one, but I guess you can if your local epidemic is part of a global 'pandemic'.
But elsewhere:
"Declaration of human biosecurity emergency
On 18 March 2020 the Governor-General declared, pursuant to section 475 of the Biosecurity Act 2015, that a human biosecurity emergency exists because human coronavirus with pandemic potential is an infectious disease:
that has entered Australian territory andthat is fatal in some cases and..."
Lucky the governer general didn't need to understand the difference between a virus and a disease to make such a declaration.
I understand the difference, I think. Like everyone else I have taken to calling Sars-CoV-2 "Covid". It's easier, faster and it seems to really natagonise that 'crazy monkey' guy. Tamagotchi? Whatever his name was.
Governer? Oh you mean Governor?
You say Argon, I say Nitrogen.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said...
I understand the difference, I think. Like everyone else I have taken to calling Sars-CoV-2 "Covid". It's easier, faster and it seems to really natagonise that 'crazy monkey' guy. Tamagotchi? Whatever his name was.
Governer? Oh you mean Governor?
You say Argon, I say Nitrogen.
Touche. I award you 2 points
Interesting that The Defender is the only publication to actively investigate the phenomenon of excess deaths over the past year. childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/united-kingdom-data-sharp-increase-excess-deaths/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230515
Yeah, bloody amazing:
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/thousands-more-aussies-dying-as-excess-deaths-rise/news-story/2e6d46659884d19d9a8d27c52808cf61
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/report-shows-australias-excess-mortality-rate-has-risen-to-levels-not-seen-since-world-war-ii/news-story/2f86a5483b9ae8363fc80082ae95ba3d
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/excess-deaths-in-2022-incredibly-high-at-13-per-cent/news-story/2a33dfeeb7476765da4e237c59f59bf7
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/australian-vaccine-experts-shoot-down-claims-that-excess-deaths-were-caused-by-covid-vaccines/news-story/258463f69210d8af70fc05ce135ed89f
Must be a conspiracy hey if only one place is reporting this.
I guess the only alternative is that it is something people have looked at and you are only looking at your kooky sources.
Not the MSM! It never tells the truth (that I want to hear).
Interesting that The Defender is the only publication to actively INVESTIGATE the phenomenon of excess deaths over the past year.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Interesting that The Defender is the only publication to actively INVESTIGATE the phenomenon of excess deaths over the past year.
The INTERESTING bit is that you can read the exact same info from a mainstream news source, and the likely explanations, but you only think the "investigation" is done from an alternative news source.
Unless nurse Campbell owns or works for 'The Defender" then your argument is full of holes.
Is this, in summary, the effect of better health care and isolation in the lockdown periods? So the following years effectvely have a catchup period where deaths typical for that time period catch up?
Did anyone turn around in 2020 and say 'excess deaths are down right now, so there must be a conspiracy'?
Nope, because that is logic, and we don't apply logic when there is a good story to tell at the pub.
That's a lot of excess deaths before vaccines became available It's almost like there was a global pandemic killing people.
Dr Aseem Malhotra- Prominent British Cardiologist - twice jabbed - interesting conversation
open.spotify.com/episode/43D9PMFx0j9BdbpcS9meBY?si=3OdTK3e3SLG_vpNK4zpRgQ
Select to expand quotehitch_hiker said..
Dr Aseem Malhotra- Prominent British Cardiologist - twice jabbed - interesting conversation
open.spotify.com/episode/43D9PMFx0j9BdbpcS9meBY?si=3OdTK3e3SLG_vpNK4zpRgQ
Listened last week.He wouldn't be too popular with the pharmaceutical community.
Guess that's why he doesn't get invited to speak on the legacy media.
Guess that's why the legacy media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Guess that's why the legacy media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Sheepies should feel extremely privileged to have unfettered access to this confidential and special information.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..japie said..
Guess that's why the legacy media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Sheepies should feel extremely privileged to have unfettered access to this confidential and special information.
He has the secret sheep info from the German Secret Society, ssshhhhhhhh.
Select to expand quotejapie said..hitch_hiker said..
Dr Aseem Malhotra- Prominent British Cardiologist - twice jabbed - interesting conversation
open.spotify.com/episode/43D9PMFx0j9BdbpcS9meBY?si=3OdTK3e3SLG_vpNK4zpRgQ
Listened last week.He wouldn't be too popular with the pharmaceutical community.
Guess that's why he doesn't get invited to speak on the legacy media.
Guess that's why the legacy media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Nah he got invited on to a show to talk about statins, cos he's famous cardiologist, and he instead went on an Anti-Covid vaccine rant instead.
They wanted a respected cardiologists insights into the topic of statins safety, but instead got a dime-a-dozen anti-covid vaccine nutter
"dime-a-dozen anti-covid vaccine nutter," thats funny , LOL
I did some work in Nimbin recently, met some great people living off the land alternative lifestyle crew. Respect to them.
Then there were the antivax, antigov. anti round world types. lol Wow, I mean WOW, lost causes.
Plenty of them in Nimbin, maybe there needs to be a peer review into mushrooms, acid and pot that makes people paranoid that the government is trying to kill them and make the flat earth round.
Is it a coincidence that most that get sucked into this type of thing wear tie dye shirts and say dude and man a lot?
"Inadequate support: Malhotra's claim that COVID-19 vaccines might do more harm than good is based on anecdotal evidence and low-quality studies-some of them disputed-that are insufficient to support his claim.
Cherry-picking: The article cited mainly studies suggesting a negative effect of COVID-19 vaccines, but didn't acknowledge the wider body of evidence showing that the vaccines are safe and effective.
Whatever did happen to Dude and Man ?
Maybe they are hanging out with eyemhardcore (and lotto) in Nimbin.
Select to expand quotejapie said..hitch_hiker said..
Dr Aseem Malhotra- Prominent British Cardiologist - twice jabbed - interesting conversation
open.spotify.com/episode/43D9PMFx0j9BdbpcS9meBY?si=3OdTK3e3SLG_vpNK4zpRgQ
Listened last week.He wouldn't be too popular with the pharmaceutical community.
Guess that's why he doesn't get invited to speak on the legacy media.
Guess that's why the legacy media is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Thats why peeps like Rogan **** all over the dinosaurs of legacy
