Select to expand quoteremery said..
Eighteen months ago. The virus has evolved. Research and understanding has moved on. Science is not a belief system.
Eighteen months ago many people were saying the same thing they are saying now.
Eighteen months ago they were all chucked in the same bucket and labelled crack-pot anti-vaxxers.
I don't think it is the 'science' that has changed.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Flying Dutchman said..
I was responding to the quote, "...the vaccine wasn't ever promoted to prevent you getting COVID..."
18 months ago it was promoted that way which helped fuel the mandates and subsequent discrimination against the unvaccinated.
As of three months ago there were still posters up demanding that you get vaccinated so as to protect other people. mRNA vaccines were never even tested for preventing transmission either.
Still, all that misinformation is so well embedded in the public consciousness now that despite the facts known about the vaccine, if you don't "believe" in that particular vaccine, then you're anti-all-vaxx. Derp.
We've still got radio ads in Perth suggesting a fourth dose to protect others.
Still asking to flatten the curve.
Navy SEAL commander found dead at his San Diego home | Daily Mail Online
If you read the comments nearly everyone thinks the vax killed him.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Navy SEAL commander found dead at his San Diego home | Daily Mail Online
If you read the comments nearly everyone thinks the vax killed him.
Speculating the cause of death without any background knowledge of this guy won't help PC. Stick to the verified cases otherwise the message will carry little weight.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Navy SEAL commander found dead at his San Diego home | Daily Mail Online
If you read the comments nearly everyone thinks the vax killed him.
That's it then, if nearly everyone thinks so then it must be so.
Don't bother with an autopsy to find the actual cause of death.
Point being look at how much public opinion has shifted on the safety of these experimental shots.
Gone from safe and effective to the opposite.
There will always be the FN types who will continue to believe their science irrespective 
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Point being look at how much public opinion has shifted on the safety of these experimental shots.
Gone from safe and effective to the opposite.
There's definitely a shift in public opinion, it's certainly not as one sided anymore.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Point being look at how much public opinion has shifted on the safety of these experimental shots.
Gone from safe and effective to the opposite.
There will always be the FN types who will continue to believe their science irrespective
There will always be the idiots that assume everything is evil and wrong and just gulps down crazy theories.
A lot of people now seem to be saying 'see Covid was not really a problem' and have no idea that Omicron is an evolution of the virus and less aggressive. They seem to think they were right all along and cannot follow the logic.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
crazy theories
Omicron is an evolution of the virus and less aggressive
You mean, all those analysis based on data and facts that are now being presented by the government as what they knew all along? Yeah, crazy.
Funny, ages ago I remember saying that if this coronavirus follows the typical evolution of coronaviruses, then it'll end up like the other 4 or 5 coronaviruses we call the common cold... and I remember someone calling me an unscientific crazy conspiracy theorist.
Oh how the jerseys have changed...
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
flatten the curve.
That cute graph was only ever just a little graphic displaying what they hoped would happen if we went through with all the NPIs.
Here's the reality...
Models, eh. What are they good for. Stay close to your defibrillator.
Your graph is almost three years old. Here's something from the same website from today.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Your graph is almost three years old. Here's something from the same website from today.
"Fewer than 0.001% of people who have received a dose experienced a severe adverse reaction."
Only 1 in 100,000 people get a serious reaction? That would equate to about 260 people in Australia.
There's multiple people here in this forum (with a tiny sample size) that have had what I would call serious adverse reactions. I know 2 personally out of a friend group of roughly 20. I know about 4 friends of friends. I've spoken to many people on my travels that know someone who's had something happen. Heck even Dr Phelps AND her partner have suffered it in the same household. What's the odds of 2 people in the same house having a serious adverse reaction at a 0.001% rate?
I unsure what Florida's reporting system is but I know here in Australia that it's extremely under reported. My case of severe myocarditis and pericarditis hasn't been reported to the tga due to the time it takes for someone to report. Doctors are so busy and overwhelmed that it's not worth there while to report. The data that the tga is putting out is not 100% correct or trustworthy. This has been shown now as they initially stuffed up the risk vs reward ratio for fit healthy people.
Select to expand quoteok said..
I unsure what Florida's reporting system is but I know here in Australia that it's extremely under reported. My case of severe myocarditis and pericarditis hasn't been reported to the tga due to the time it takes for someone to report. Doctors are so busy and overwhelmed that it's not worth there while to report. The data that the tga is putting out is not 100% correct or trustworthy. This has been shown now as they initially stuffed up the risk vs reward ratio for fit healthy people.
Yep, as I've said previously, my daughter's case certainly isn't in the official statistics and neither are the other two girls she knows of with her condition. The underreporting would be massive, a factor of 100 wouldn't surprise me. This is in stark contrast to the what manages to get included in the COVID death tally.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Your graph is almost three years old. Here's something from the same website from today.
I'm unsure how to judge those graphs against each other. One is hospitalisations, while the other is vaccination rates. Just what are we comparing here?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Eighteen months ago. The virus has evolved. Research and understanding has moved on. Science is not a belief system.
The science certainly did change.
Prof Stephen Powis, NHS medical director, said: "Callous firms looking to maximise profits by pushing products that fly in the face of official advice is outright dangerous and has rightly been banned."
www.bbc.com/news/uk-51729647
Why would the science not change? New data and understanding comes along and the science changes. That's why we publish in peer reviewed journals. As I said, science is not a belief system.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/research-integrity-must-scientific-leadership-jadson-jall-msc-mba
I thought science was about open argument about the facts not censorship of those that don't follow the mob or political agenda.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
I'm unsure how to judge those graphs against each other. One is hospitalisations, while the other is vaccination rates. Just what are we comparing here?
Apples and oranges, it would seem...!
I was specifically talking about the "two weeks to flatten the curve look here's a graph of how it'll work" narrative versus the reality, as I'm sure you understand, Harrow.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Why would the science not change? New data and understanding comes along and the science changes. That's why we publish in peer reviewed journals. As I said, science is not a belief system.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/research-integrity-must-scientific-leadership-jadson-jall-msc-mba
There's no such thing as "the science" except in the mind of the propagandist.
Science is a tool kit for thinking critically and explaining reality, creating and refining hypothesis to explain observations.
I don't think you get what peer-review is -- it's not publication of perfect unassailable facts, but a chance to disseminate your research and conclusions as the first step for others to assess and analyze. The "peer-review" part is just to make sure you don't embarrass yourself with rookie mistakes in the paper.
You present your findings, they get discussed. Scientific method doesn't silence disagreement because there's a political policy to pursue.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
The science certainly did change.
Prof Stephen Powis, NHS medical director, said: "Callous firms looking to maximise profits by pushing products that fly in the face of official advice is outright dangerous and has rightly been banned."
www.bbc.com/news/uk-51729647
Florida and parts of Europe are beginning investigations into whether or not the vaccines were "fit for purpose".
Just remember tomorrow when you over eat and pass out that it's definitely diet and not steroids ! happy honika ! ??
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Harrow said..
I'm unsure how to judge those graphs against each other. One is hospitalisations, while the other is vaccination rates. Just what are we comparing here?
Apples and oranges, it would seem...!
I was specifically talking about the "two weeks to flatten the curve look here's a graph of how it'll work" narrative versus the reality, as I'm sure you understand, Harrow.
I think he was talking about remerys graph
Select to expand quoteRango said..
I thought science was about open argument about the facts not censorship of those that don't follow the mob or political agenda.
Yes, yes it is. That's why flat earthers are laughed at.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Flying Dutchman said..
The science certainly did change.
Prof Stephen Powis, NHS medical director, said: "Callous firms looking to maximise profits by pushing products that fly in the face of official advice is outright dangerous and has rightly been banned."
www.bbc.com/news/uk-51729647
Florida and parts of Europe are beginning investigations into whether or not the vaccines were "fit for purpose".
Florida, the pinnacle of ignorance.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Kamikuza said..Flying Dutchman said..
The science certainly did change.
Prof Stephen Powis, NHS medical director, said: "Callous firms looking to maximise profits by pushing products that fly in the face of official advice is outright dangerous and has rightly been banned."
www.bbc.com/news/uk-51729647
Florida and parts of Europe are beginning investigations into whether or not the vaccines were "fit for purpose".
Florida, the pinnacle of ignorance.
What's your occupation / credentials Remery ? Must be pretty intelligent to be smarter than a whole state of Florida and its constituents. A state that has a similar population to the whole of Australia
Merry Xmas ... thanks for the banter in 2022.... it's cool we can question everything! 
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
Merry Xmas ... thanks for the banter in 2022.... it's cool we can question everything!
I'd like to question the need to indemnify companies selling a product. If a product works so well why does it need to be indemnified? 
Select to expand quoteok said..
I'd like to question the need to indemnify companies selling a product. If a product works so well why does it need to be indemnified?
Because you can't foresee all the problems with only a few months testing and if they had to pay out all the potential injuries it would bankrupt them.
Or if the product had not been invented, many people would have died and the health system collapsed.
