FutureTheLeftWant
Member
Wakefield is banging elle mcpherson. The cunt
Antivax movement imploding in Oz.
- Thread starter Linus
- Start date
Lols
Active member
Don’t make me come up there to tell you this…
but I NEVER whinged about the mask …nor about the social distancing in supermarkets …nor about the hand sanitizing …. I’m doing it voluntarily… my choice.And both hubby and I instinctively knew when it was announced just on winter’s doorstep when flu is rife… no masks mandates at airports…. Hubby shakes his head and says “not a good idea” and yes… we wore them at airport recently and on plane.
But look at McClown in WA how harsh he was and now… totally opposite… much to the horror of those in WA that voted for him. They seem unhappy with it.
What’s with the inconsistency from WA and Vic premiers? Vote time closing in?
Oh and re: the part about protecting the elderly… something Despot Dan sorely lacked as many in elderly homes died. Highest elderly deaths from covid compared to all other states.
sorry, with so much whinging it's hard to keep track off sometimesDon’t make me come up there to tell you this…
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
I was being metaphorical you idiot! I was responding to your stupid "breakthrough cases". Which you avoided explaining!
I am quite aware of the actual pathways in which this virus spreads to another person. But, you must first HAVE THE VIRUS IN YOU, and your IMMUNE SYSTEM MUST RESPOND TO IT, to express these symptoms. No immune response, no sneezing, no coughing, no runny eyes and nose, and no spreading of the virus(bar viral shedding). Since the skin cells have ACE2 receptors, the virus CAN attach and infect the skin cells. But the skin is very layered. So viral infection of the skin, would incur a systemic response(not an immune response). Therefore, you would need to touch your face, nose, eyes, or another person's to develop the disease(Covid-19), or to provoke a full immune response.
Masks don't work because they don't provide a perfect fit(one size fits all). Therefore, you breathe through all of the openings(sides and tops). Even the smallest aerosol droplets can contain thousands of millions of this virus. So, it is extremely unlikely that you would avoid breathing in a few of these viruses. Hence why the largest group of professionals infected, are the healthcare professionals. And, they would have the best protection available, right? Also, your eyes provide another pathway for the virus to enter your body. So, not sure what your trying to say here.
You've explained nothing to me! All you've done is refer me to your selective sights, and tell me that they will answer all my questions. Since I can't question your sites, and you don't have a clue, I'm stuck with listening to all your insults and bluffs. You should have at least enough understanding of your own articles, TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEM!Shell wrote:
If vaccinations stop the virus, so that it doesn't jump to my body, then WHY are fully vaccinated people still being infected and reinfected??
I've already answered this elsewhere and here. The vaccines protect you. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill or die from the virus. I referenced the NSW Health data in the other thread. I have already told you in this one that from that data the majority of hospitalisations come from the unvaccinated. And of the vaccinated that are in hospital those who have four shots represent a tiniest proportion. There are other real world studies.
You can look here:
Effectiveness of COVID‐19 vaccines: findings from real world studies
Community- based studies in five countries show consistent strong benefits from early rollouts of COVID-19 vaccineswww.mja.com.au
Again, the problem with relying on statistics, is that the results can be interpreted in many ways. Using only the results as the premise, does not mean that the premise is true. It only means that the statistical facts are true. They do not explain the WHY OR THE HOW! No parameters were explained. No variables, exceptions, sample sizes, or contradictory results were included or mentioned. I can statistically prove that there have consistently been more female births than male births. Can I then conclude that the male population is in danger of dying out? Sure, I could! But is this true? There is a difference in what is statistically true, and what is actually true. This is how politicians spread their half-truths and disinformation(I.e., Black Americans commit 50% of all murders).
I have never said that this vaccine doesn't do what it was designed to do. If you took a tiny rock and placed it under your skin, it would evoke an immune response. So yes, forcing muscle cells to produce viral spikes, WOULD evoke an immune response that would attack only that spike. These tiny innate antibodies don't think or discern. If you weren't born with it, they will attack it. This video is the best, and least complicated I could find to illustrate how the NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS! Vaccines play only a minor role in the system's overall function.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/video/immune-system-explained
The problem is, that you keep parroting that this vaccine saves lives, prevent infections, lessen the severity of symptoms, and will prevent transmission. THESE ARE ALL LIES! Vaccinated people are still dying from, becoming reinfected with, having severe symptoms from, and are still spreading this virus. As well as unvaccinated people who are infected! The only rational explanation that explains this, is the condition of the patients immune system. Nothing to do with whether they are vaccinated or not. All vaccines are precautionary AT BEST, therapeutic SOMETIMES, and useless AT WORST(for those dead)!
And, there is nothing on this planet that can stop any virus from infecting you! Sorry, but these are the facts.
What does vaccinated people are doing better than unvaccinated people actually mean? To the dying or dead unvaccinated/vaccinated person, this is meaningless! So, simply deflating and demeaning the question doesn't mean that the question is absurd or pointless. It just means that you can't or don't want to answer it. And, answering a question WITH a question, is just deflecting to avoid answering.
We were first told that masks and distancing would slow down this virus. They lied! We were told that isolation and lockdowns would slow down this virus. They lied! We were told that hospitals would be overwhelmed as this virus infected more and more people. They lied! We were told that closing down major industries and small businesses, and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs were necessary to save lives. They lied! We were told that this "quick fix" new type of vaccine, would prevent people from becoming infected, dying, spreading, or becoming seriously ill from this virus. They lied! Now they are telling us that endless vaccines and boosters are necessary to save lives. Sorry, their track record speaks for itself. But it is YOUR choice!
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
What do I mean by being infected? I mean a single virus flies into your nose, mouth, or eyes, and attaches itself to one of its preferred cells. And, then begins to duplicate itself. What do you THINK it means for a person becomes infected, dumb-dumb?
What you think is clearly irrelevant! What I was saying is, that I'm NOT afraid of a virus less lethal than the measles. A virus with a mortality rate of less than 0.1%. A virus that only effects a fraction of the total population. So being forced/coerced and shamed into taking endless vaccines and boosters, is just insane to me! And, I argue because of people like you, who keep parroting and peddling half-truths, lies, and disinformation, AD NAUSEUM!
I don't stick a seatbelt or a traffic light into my arm, dumb-dumb! And, I don't wear a seat belt when shopping or walking in the park. Horrible comparison! Or, are you saying, that because we are told to do some things for a rational reason, that this justifies being told to do anything for a rational reason? Read a book!
So in your convoluted reasoning, because people voluntarily take yearly flu vaccines(whose genome is segmented), that this means that it is okay to take the Covid-19 vaccines(non-segmented genome) indefinitely? Madness! And, you call me irrational?
When I say shit, I hope you don't think I literally mean shit. What I mean is "crap" in a figurative sense. These vaccines mimic an infection that forces the immune system to respond. This response produces very robust antigen-specific, low spectrum, extremely high affinity antibodies(which is why it works). They will out compete against all other antibodies to attack this infection. I would prefer keeping MORE of my normal broad spectrum, antigen-nonspecific, and low affinity antibodies. These are the antibodies I want fighting REAL viral infections. Antibodies that are only created when I actually have been infected. But that is me! NOT YOU!
And, I don't know all the ingredients in this virus. Except for the ones the drug companies have listed. I've asked two questions about the function of this vaccine, based on the ingredients listed. No answers so far!
WOW! So in your self-serving delusion, I should infect myself with a vaccine, that produces and antigen that I never had, for a disease that I don't have, so in case I am infected, I will not spread the virus and potentially kill someone more vulnerable? I really don't give a shit how you want to spin your hypocritical bullshit. It is my body, and it damn sure is my choice. And, no amount of your hypocritical shaming, and crystal-balling nonsense is going to give you control over my body, and definitely not over how I think!
You are simply told what to do, and you do it. You don't think, you don't question, and you don't disobey! So, if being egocentric and selfish means to think for myself, using my own commonsense and the verifiable facts, then I am. I'm curious, just how many people have you told to stop smoking, quit drinking, or stop eating so much? That their related illnesses are placing an unnecessary drain on the health system? And, will cause emotional stress on their loved ones?
Since people were still being infected, simply claiming that vaccines are the reason for the return of our freedoms, makes no sense. We have our freedoms back, because the non-spineless Australians did not drink all the Kool-Aid. And, removed the current government, and replaced it with people who don't think they can physically stop a virus, or keep 26M people 2 meters apart.
There are two types of freedoms. Intrinsic and extrinsic. Our extrinsic freedoms requires no restrictions or barriers. This is our basic freedoms as a human being. The right to decide what goes into your body is just one example of this freedom. Intrinsic freedom is what you're talking about. The herd/bandwagon/hive mentality. Restrictions based of social feedbacks, norms, customs, and for the general good of the society.
Unless you are a total moron, given a choice between jab or job, is not much of a choice. Not wanting to to be asked to leave restaurants, pubs, libraries, unless you have a vaccine passport, is also not a realistic choice. If you choose NOT to be tested in the healthcare system, or in education, you will be fired! No choice there either. If you think that this can be characterized as "reasonably demanded", then you are an ignorant idiot as well.
Just more bullshit. None of these manufactured fears EVER HAPPEND! Except in your mind! And since News Corp Australia titles account for 59% of all daily newspaper sales in Australia, they are more of an extension of Rupert Murdoch's beliefs, than as an unbiased objective news source. Therefore, just another extension of the Government's rhetoric.
I am for saving suffering, lives, and preventions. But NOT AT ANY COST!! There is a limit to how far I will go. My limit is forcing/coercing/shaming me into putting anything into my body without my consent. I would've thought this to be a no brainer!
Spin it anyway you want. IT FUCKING WORKED! Or, do you believe, that all these silly and useless restrictions and lockdowns are still in effect? And, as long as this occurred just before and just after the election, the message was received loud and clear, just how far the government can push us. Voting is the only power the people have! What sad little toady sycophants like you believe in, can be learned by watching Good Morning Australia. People like you are a danger because they will attack anyone who dares to challenge your masters. So tell your new masters, if they try to do this again, they will also be shown the door.
So I, and those disgruntled pro-choicers couldn't be more happier with our efforts. Don't worry, you still have your freedom to keep injecting whatever shit your masters tell you to, IN-FUCKING-DEFINITELY!!
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
Firstly, could you provide the full link? And secondly, lets talk about the math. Lets just assume that all the total death of vaccinated/unvaccinated were directly from the complications of Covid-19.
Since you say that only 2% of the population are the unvaccinated, and 98% of the population are the vaccinated, lets keep the ratio the same(98 : 2). So, lets double this ratio for this example. If we took a population of 196 vaccinated people, and another population of 4 unvaccinated, we would be mathematically correct in representing the correct population distribution, right?
Lets just ignore if they were randomly sampled or not? Now lets say that in the vaccinated group of infected, 20 people died of Covid-19 complications. And, 2 people died of the the same complications in the unvaccinated group. Does this conclusion mean that only 10% of the vaccinated people died, and 50% of the unvaccinated people died? YES! But does this mean that 5 times more unvaccinated people are dying than vaccinated people? NO! Why?
First we were told that it was the unvaccinated who were skewing the death curve. Now, even after the population has reached 98% vaccinated, we are still using the unvaccinated as an excuse for why vaccinated people are still dying of this virus. My claim long ago was, that even if we reach a 100% vaccinated population, that this would only mean that only vaccinated people would be dying from this virus. This is exactly what we are seeing.
Look at the hospital's daily death totals in any State you choose. You will see that the overwhelming deaths with/from Covid-19 are vaccinated people. This is the obvious, and expected trend that we would expect to see in a 98% vaccinated population. Because it will always be the condition of our immune system, that will determines whether we survive or die from Covid-19. Not a vaccine.
ausGeoff
New member
As a newbie here, I have to ask why Shell wastes so much of their
time posting page after page of misinformation, anti-vax bias,
misrepresentation of scientifically established facts, conspiracy
theories, falsehoods, and even blatant lies.
That the anti-vaxxers are facing a lost cause is obvious now, with
a mere 2.2% of the eligible population totally unvaccinated.
And these 2.2% are the future COVID deaths waiting to happen. Sad really, and so unnecessary. I can only hope that Shell is not asymptomatic, and happily spreading
the virus wherever they go in public!
I'd like to know were Shell a parent, would they have their children vaccinated against
diphtheria, chickenpox, pneumococcal, rubella, poliomyelitis, rotavirus or hepatitis etc? None of these is compulsory in Australia, but it would be an errant parent who refused to have their children vaccinated against a slew of deadly diseases.
In fact, researchers from the University of Western Australia and the University of Sydney found that 85% of parents are in favour of a mandatory vaccination policy, with
only 9% disagreeing. [RACGP, 3 July 2019]
time posting page after page of misinformation, anti-vax bias,
misrepresentation of scientifically established facts, conspiracy
theories, falsehoods, and even blatant lies.
That the anti-vaxxers are facing a lost cause is obvious now, with
a mere 2.2% of the eligible population totally unvaccinated.
And these 2.2% are the future COVID deaths waiting to happen. Sad really, and so unnecessary. I can only hope that Shell is not asymptomatic, and happily spreading
the virus wherever they go in public!
I'd like to know were Shell a parent, would they have their children vaccinated against
diphtheria, chickenpox, pneumococcal, rubella, poliomyelitis, rotavirus or hepatitis etc? None of these is compulsory in Australia, but it would be an errant parent who refused to have their children vaccinated against a slew of deadly diseases.
In fact, researchers from the University of Western Australia and the University of Sydney found that 85% of parents are in favour of a mandatory vaccination policy, with
only 9% disagreeing. [RACGP, 3 July 2019]
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
I'm sorry. Other than a whole lot of editorializing, I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything I've said. I don't disagree with any of the data. I'm sure that they are all correct. Did you address the sampling size, or the false conclusions I was illustrating? How about the daily number of death at hospitals?As a newbie here, I have to ask why Shell wastes so much of their
time posting page after page of misinformation, anti-vax bias,
misrepresentation of scientifically established facts, conspiracy
theories, falsehoods, and even blatant lies.
That the anti-vaxxers are facing a lost cause is obvious now, with
a mere 2.2% of the eligible population totally unvaccinated.
And these 2.2% are the future COVID deaths waiting to happen. Sad really, and so unnecessary. I can only hope that Shell is not asymptomatic, and happily spreading
the virus wherever they go in public!
I'd like to know were Shell a parent, would they have their children vaccinated against
diphtheria, chickenpox, pneumococcal, rubella, poliomyelitis, rotavirus or hepatitis etc? None of these is compulsory in Australia, but it would be an errant parent who refused to have their children vaccinated against a slew of deadly diseases.
In fact, researchers from the University of Western Australia and the University of Sydney found that 85% of parents are in favour of a mandatory vaccination policy, with
only 9% disagreeing. [RACGP, 3 July 2019]
Whether I am symptomatic or not is irrelevant. Other than just your opinion, what verifiable evidence, even suggest that unvaccinated people are deaths just waiting to happen? It think, in reality, we all would fit in that category. What is sad, is that you would even think this way.
I am NOT an antivaxxer, and my children and I have all been immunized. Totally different type of vaccine back then. I'm also one of those who was not allowed to say my last goodbyes to my mother.
ausGeoff
New member
No problem: Average weekly COVID death rates in March 2022: Scientific American
The actual (or any maths) is unnecessary Shell. It's the statistics that
tell the story, and statistics don't lie.
EG: From a data set of 644 individuals, 383 unvaccinated people died,
whilst 261 vaccinated people died. But, the sample population ratio
is 3.3, so 383 x 3.3 is the equivalent number of the unvaccinated people
who died, or 1,264 unvaccinated. In simple terms then, this means
that unvaccinated people are dying at a rate of nearly 5 times that of
the unvaccinated.
Not so. An individual's immune stem does not necessarily determine whether
one dies from COVID or not. People who are immunocompromised routinely
survive a COVID infection, whilst others with a 100% immune system often die.
The COVID vaccines simply reduce one's chance of ending up in ICU or dying;
they do not prevent the death of some infected individuals.
It's just a topic he is invested in. I think most of us have a political or social topic that is really important to us. I have a couple like that.
Shell can spend as much time as he wants arguing his position. He is not forcing anyone here to "waste their time". What you choose to read on the site is up to you.
Seth
ausGeoff
New member
Firstly Shell, I'm sorry to hear about your mum, and I know how distressing
it is to miss that last goodbye—I was in the same position with my parents.
I also appreciate that despite your strong objections to COVID vaccinating
and your apparent misunderstanding of the death rates of vaxxed v. unvaxxed
people that you've had your children vaccinated.
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
No Seth. I am no longer invested. We won out freedoms and rights back through peaceful marches, protests, and at the polls. True democracy in action.
It's all just fun now!
The page turns and Shell returns to the same, to repeat her anti-covid vaxxer( Is that better?) views anew. Are you hoping that people will forget your debunked views as the page turns?
Shell wrote:
I was being metaphorical you idiot!
Do look up "metaphorical" and compare and contrast with" rhetorical". Rhetorical was the appropriate word here.
Shell wrote:
I was responding to your stupid "breakthrough cases". Which you avoided explaining!
I explained it, you didn't read it or avoided reading it or are just lying. And I explained it again. Scroll up.
Shell wrote:
I am quite aware of the actual pathways in which this virus spreads to another person. But, you must first HAVE THE VIRUS IN YOU, and your IMMUNE SYSTEM MUST RESPOND TO IT, to express these symptoms. No immune response, no sneezing, no coughing, no runny eyes and nose, and no spreading of the virus(bar viral shedding).
This is half true. As it turns out ".....infected people without symptoms were shown to be contagious in a window of time lasting anywhere from three to 12 days, with eight days being the average. So without any apparent symptoms, these virus carriers could continue shedding and spreading SARS-CoV-2 for about a week...
www.medicinenet.com
Shell wrote:
Since the skin cells have ACE2 receptors, the virus CAN attach and infect the skin cells. But the skin is very layered.So viral infection of the skin, would incur a systemic response(not an immune response). Therefore, you would need to touch your face, nose, eyes, or another person's to develop the disease(Covid-19), or to provoke a full immune response.
Shell does like to sound important. After all, she's been straining to tell us through pages of verbiage that she knows better than the relevant experts and authorities.
The skin cells do not get directly infected by its contact with covid outside of the body, as far as I am aware. Would you like to provide a reference on that or are you just making things up?
And if Covid doesn't directly infect skin by contact with Covid outside the body, then you're making it up as you go along when you refer to systemic response v immune response in relation to this.
Can you define Systemic response and Immune system response for us? Do provide references.
Can you distinguish between the two for us?
Once you have Covid , however, it can cause skin problems like rashes indirectly:
"Some of the COVID-19 rashes are not caused by the virus itself, but by the body's immune response to the virus.
For instance, research suggests some may be caused by over-activation of a part of the immune system known as the "complement" response. This leads to the blood vessel damage seen in the chilblain-type symptoms"
medicalxpress.com
It seems from the quote, Shell, that as far as the skin goes , its all immune response or direct viral action( of the virus already within the body)
Shell writes:
"Masks don't work because they don't provide a perfect fit(one size fits all). Therefore, you breathe through all of the openings(sides and tops). Even the smallest aerosol droplets can contain thousands of millions of this virus. So, it is extremely unlikely that you would avoid breathing in a few of these viruses. Hence why the largest group of professionals infected, are the healthcare professionals. And, they would have the best protection available, right? Also, your eyes provide another pathway for the virus to enter your body. So, not sure what your trying to say here."
Masks don't work at all, Shell? They don't any afford any protection at all, Shell?
If they do provide some protection then you're talking shit, right?
"Dr. John Swartzberg, a clinical professor emeritus in infectious diseases and vaccinology at Berkeley Public Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the risk of transmission with BA.5 was "greater inside or outside."
"If I was crowded together with other people where I couldn't keep my distance, or if somebody near me was talking loudly or singing, I would just carry a mask with me and put it on if I feel uncomfortable," he said.
"Dr. Maimuna Majumder, a computational epidemiologist specializing in emerging epidemics at Boston Children's Hospital told Insider that she wears a mask in particuarly crowded outdoor settings, such as an open-air concert where people are cramped together. Majumder said she highly recommends that others do the same.
"It's important to remember that while the outdoors is considerably safer than many indoors spaces, the closer together people are in an outdoor space (and the more people there are), the more air people share with each other," Majumder said.
"It's important to remember that while the outdoors is considerably safer than many indoors spaces, the closer together people are in an outdoor space (and the more people there are), the more air people share with each other," Majumder said."
www.insider.com
And here:
"How well do masks and respirators work?
"To assess COVID risk and masks, we have to rely on studies in which we are unable to control exactly what people's exposure to the virus is. This is because we can't deliberately put people in risky settings. But that means the results are less clear-cut than if we could control the duration and concentration of disease around each subject.
One meta-analysis (pooled results from multiple studies) of the performance of surgical masks versus respirators in healthcare workers found respirators tended to provide better protection than surgical masks, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, staff were more likely to wear respirators when they were working in high-risk areas with greater exposure to COVID, so the results were biased against respirators.
A recent community study compared the effectiveness of masks or respirators with no masks. People who had received a positive COVID PCR result were matched by age, gender and locality, with people who had a negative result. They were surveyed about their mask or respirator use in indoor public settings two weeks before the test.
Those who always wore any type of mask or respirator in indoor public spaces were 56% less likely to test positive than those that never wore one. There was an 83% reduction in the odds of getting a positive test in those who wore a respirator, compared with a 66% reduction in those wearing surgical masks. Those wearing a cloth mask had lower odds of having a positive PCR test result than those wearing no mask, but the difference was not statistically significant."
medicalxpress.com
So, Shell, masks are worthwhile and you're talking shit. More lies and misinformation from you.
Shell writes:
You've explained nothing to me!
I'm not surprised. You don't read, avoid reading, can't read or can't understand. Take your pick.
Shell writes:
All you've done is refer me to your selective sights, and tell me that they will answer all my questions.
That's "sites" not "sights".
Since I can't question your sites, and you don't have a clue, I'm stuck with listening to all your insults and bluffs.You should have at least enough understanding of your own articles, TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEM!
The references I gave you throughout this argument over two threads say what they mean and mean what they say. Anyone reading them, well, apart from you, can understand them. I did explain in my own words where appropriate, I did quote understandable excerpts and gave you the reference to these excerpts if you wanted to look at the source more closely, and, of course, for practicality I left it for you to look at data because it would have been impracticable to dump it here.
Defend my references? WTF are you saying? References are there to support what I say or assert. I don't need to defend them. It's up to you to attack a reference if you think there's something wrong with it and offer something better.
This is what I wrote to which you attacked with the above:
"I've already answered this elsewhere and here. The vaccines protect you. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill or die from the virus. I referenced the NSW Health data in the other thread. I have already told you in this one that from that data the majority of hospitalisations come from the unvaccinated. And of the vaccinated that are in hospital those who have four shots represent a tiniest proportion. There are other real world studies."
Now scroll up for the reference. No, wait, I'll provide it again:
www.covid19data.com.au
I explained what I was looking at and referenced it so you or anyone else could check.
Shell writes:
Again, the problem with relying on statistics, is that the results can be interpreted in many ways. Using only the results as the premise, does not mean that the premise is true. It only means that the statistical facts are true. They do not explain the WHY OR THE HOW! No parameters were explained. No variables, exceptions, sample sizes, or contradictory results were included or mentioned. I can statistically prove that there have consistently been more female births than male births. Can I then conclude that the male population is in danger of dying out? Sure, I could! But is this true? There is a difference in what is statistically true, and what is actually true. This is how politicians spread their half-truths and disinformation(I.e., Black Americans commit 50% of all murders).
Pure bullshit.
If you're going to attack any statistics or data I provided in relation to this argument we're having, then provide an alternative interpretation or statistics and we can argue on something concrete, forget your nebulous waffle.
Shell writes:
I have never said that this vaccine doesn't do what it was designed to do. If you took a tiny rock and placed it under your skin, it would evoke an immune response. So yes, forcing muscle cells to produce viral spikes, WOULD evoke an immune response that would attack only that spike. These tiny innate antibodies don't think or discern. If you weren't born with it, they will attack it. This video is the best, and least complicated I could find to illustrate how the NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS! Vaccines play only a minor role in the system's overall function.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/video/immune-system-explained
.
Showing us a video about how the immune system works does speak to the value or efficacy of vaccines, especially the one we've been fighting over, namely, mRNA vaccines.
What you said obfuscates and attempts to misleadingly trivialise what vaccine mediated antibodies do when they, as you say, "only attack the spike". The fact that the vaccine mediated antiboides attack the viral spikes means that the virus is impeded in targeting, attaching and infecting the body's cells!!!! Moreover , it was found in research that the spikes in themselves cause harm.
Anything which attacks these spikes and blunts, degrades or destroys these spikes will help, no?
And this is why the vaccines have been efficacious in reducing illness and death. as indicated ,for example, by the cumulative hospital data already provided, again, above and in this post.
Shell writes:
The problem is, that you keep parroting that this vaccine saves lives, prevent infections, lessen the severity of symptoms, and will prevent transmission. THESE ARE ALL LIES!
No ,Shell, I've spelt it out and you're the one who comes up short. I've discussed the mechanism and given you real world data.
Shell writes:
Vaccinated people are still dying from, becoming reinfected with, having severe symptoms from, and are still spreading this virus.As well as unvaccinated people who are infected!
Yes, but to a lesser degree than the unvaccinated. Saying that they are dying says nothing against the fact that these vaccines have helped and are helping in mitigating death and reinfection. It was shown that the more shots you had the better the outcome. Refer again to the NSW hospitalisation data.
Shell writes:
The only rational explanation that explains this, is the condition of the patients immune system. Nothing to do with whether they are vaccinated or not.
You, yourself said:
"So yes, forcing muscle cells to produce viral spikes, WOULD evoke an immune response that would attack only that spike."
WTF... that's what vaccines do, evoke an immune response! They train the immune system to mount a response against a live virus by causing a response to attenuated or harmless antigens of viruses, which may include parts thereof or the whole. So when a virus attacks the body, the immune system can eliminate it before it does anything to compromise it.
Shell writes:
All vaccines are precautionary AT BEST, therapeutic SOMETIMES, and useless AT WORST(for those dead)!
And, there is nothing on this planet that can stop any virus from infecting you! Sorry, but these are the facts.
So, Shell, vaccines, you would agree, are "precautionary"or "therapeutic ". Do you know what these mean?
Here look at a dictionary:
Precautonary:
intended to prevent something unpleasant or dangerous from happening:
"Therapeutic"
"relating to the curing of a disease or medical condition"/"having a healing effect; tending to make a person healthier:"
You've strung as all along in trying to message that things that have been shown to help like vaccines,masks, sanitisers, social distancing are useless. That is, you were peddling your worst case scenario and preaching or suggesting at least there's no point in do any of it.
But that isn't true, is it Shell? And Real life experience, studies, experts and data have proved you wrong.
Vaccines may not be bullet proof method but by their use disease( and thereby illness and death) has been prevented or mitigated. Look at the success of vaccines for diseases like measles, polio and smallpox. Extremely successful.
With respect to the mRNA vaccines they have worked as other vaccines ( However, by using the novel means of inducing the muscle cells to create the antigens ). Again, look at the NSW cumulative data on hospitalisations and the distribution between vaccinated and unvaccinated. mRNA vaccines have been working!
However, it has been found that the antibodies wane over time, and that the viral spikes are mutating ( by and large due to unvaccinated people acting as reservoirs of mutations which can undermine vaccine induced immunity), and the older people their immune systems less effective in mounting the required response to the vaccine. So all that has necessitated booster shots. And it may necessitate periodic shots like we have with flu shots.
Just on your point on "nothing can prevent a virus from infecting you", I asked you what you meant by "infection". You haven't told me yet. I think by the way you've been using the term, you just mean that nothing can prevent a virus entering your body. (Well, that's not totally true.) In any case, it's meaningless as an argument or a suggestion against the use of vaccines and other measures. By using them, we have, in fact, prevented or mitigated disease. That's what this turns on not the mere fact that the virus entered into a body.
Through vaccines and other measures we get some protection and some protection is better than no protection. You have agreed by your own words to this with respect to mRNA vaccines. In respect of what I've written on masks, it would be reasonable to agree. Sanitisers, social distancing , hand washing with soap and water aren't in reasonable dispute in what you've written anywhere and certainly not where the experts are concerned.
I think, then, there's no more discussion to be had.
Shell wrote:
I was being metaphorical you idiot!
Do look up "metaphorical" and compare and contrast with" rhetorical". Rhetorical was the appropriate word here.
Shell wrote:
I was responding to your stupid "breakthrough cases". Which you avoided explaining!
I explained it, you didn't read it or avoided reading it or are just lying. And I explained it again. Scroll up.
Shell wrote:
I am quite aware of the actual pathways in which this virus spreads to another person. But, you must first HAVE THE VIRUS IN YOU, and your IMMUNE SYSTEM MUST RESPOND TO IT, to express these symptoms. No immune response, no sneezing, no coughing, no runny eyes and nose, and no spreading of the virus(bar viral shedding).
This is half true. As it turns out ".....infected people without symptoms were shown to be contagious in a window of time lasting anywhere from three to 12 days, with eight days being the average. So without any apparent symptoms, these virus carriers could continue shedding and spreading SARS-CoV-2 for about a week...
Can You Spread COVID-19 With No Symptoms? Asymptomatic/Pre-symptomatic Studies Say Yes - MedicineNet Health News
If you have no symptoms of the COVID-19 virus, can you pass the disease to others?
www.medicinenet.com
Shell wrote:
Since the skin cells have ACE2 receptors, the virus CAN attach and infect the skin cells. But the skin is very layered.So viral infection of the skin, would incur a systemic response(not an immune response). Therefore, you would need to touch your face, nose, eyes, or another person's to develop the disease(Covid-19), or to provoke a full immune response.
Shell does like to sound important. After all, she's been straining to tell us through pages of verbiage that she knows better than the relevant experts and authorities.
The skin cells do not get directly infected by its contact with covid outside of the body, as far as I am aware. Would you like to provide a reference on that or are you just making things up?
And if Covid doesn't directly infect skin by contact with Covid outside the body, then you're making it up as you go along when you refer to systemic response v immune response in relation to this.
Can you define Systemic response and Immune system response for us? Do provide references.
Can you distinguish between the two for us?
Once you have Covid , however, it can cause skin problems like rashes indirectly:
"Some of the COVID-19 rashes are not caused by the virus itself, but by the body's immune response to the virus.
For instance, research suggests some may be caused by over-activation of a part of the immune system known as the "complement" response. This leads to the blood vessel damage seen in the chilblain-type symptoms"
8 ways the coronavirus can affect your skin, from COVID toes, to rashes and hair loss
As the pandemic progresses, we're growing increasingly aware COVID-19 affects multiple parts of the body beyond the lungs. That includes the skin.
It seems from the quote, Shell, that as far as the skin goes , its all immune response or direct viral action( of the virus already within the body)
Shell writes:
"Masks don't work because they don't provide a perfect fit(one size fits all). Therefore, you breathe through all of the openings(sides and tops). Even the smallest aerosol droplets can contain thousands of millions of this virus. So, it is extremely unlikely that you would avoid breathing in a few of these viruses. Hence why the largest group of professionals infected, are the healthcare professionals. And, they would have the best protection available, right? Also, your eyes provide another pathway for the virus to enter your body. So, not sure what your trying to say here."
Masks don't work at all, Shell? They don't any afford any protection at all, Shell?
If they do provide some protection then you're talking shit, right?
"Dr. John Swartzberg, a clinical professor emeritus in infectious diseases and vaccinology at Berkeley Public Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the risk of transmission with BA.5 was "greater inside or outside."
"If I was crowded together with other people where I couldn't keep my distance, or if somebody near me was talking loudly or singing, I would just carry a mask with me and put it on if I feel uncomfortable," he said.
"Dr. Maimuna Majumder, a computational epidemiologist specializing in emerging epidemics at Boston Children's Hospital told Insider that she wears a mask in particuarly crowded outdoor settings, such as an open-air concert where people are cramped together. Majumder said she highly recommends that others do the same.
"It's important to remember that while the outdoors is considerably safer than many indoors spaces, the closer together people are in an outdoor space (and the more people there are), the more air people share with each other," Majumder said.
"It's important to remember that while the outdoors is considerably safer than many indoors spaces, the closer together people are in an outdoor space (and the more people there are), the more air people share with each other," Majumder said."
2 COVID experts say they are wearing masks outside when it's crowded as the highly infectious Omicron BA.5 variant spreads
The BA.5 variant, which is proving it can evade the body's immune response, has become the most common cause of new COVID-19 cases in the US.
www.insider.com
And here:
"How well do masks and respirators work?
"To assess COVID risk and masks, we have to rely on studies in which we are unable to control exactly what people's exposure to the virus is. This is because we can't deliberately put people in risky settings. But that means the results are less clear-cut than if we could control the duration and concentration of disease around each subject.
One meta-analysis (pooled results from multiple studies) of the performance of surgical masks versus respirators in healthcare workers found respirators tended to provide better protection than surgical masks, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, staff were more likely to wear respirators when they were working in high-risk areas with greater exposure to COVID, so the results were biased against respirators.
A recent community study compared the effectiveness of masks or respirators with no masks. People who had received a positive COVID PCR result were matched by age, gender and locality, with people who had a negative result. They were surveyed about their mask or respirator use in indoor public settings two weeks before the test.
Those who always wore any type of mask or respirator in indoor public spaces were 56% less likely to test positive than those that never wore one. There was an 83% reduction in the odds of getting a positive test in those who wore a respirator, compared with a 66% reduction in those wearing surgical masks. Those wearing a cloth mask had lower odds of having a positive PCR test result than those wearing no mask, but the difference was not statistically significant."
How effective are masks during a COVID wave?
Health departments are predicting another COVID surge related, in part, to more easily transmitted new variants and waning immunity.
So, Shell, masks are worthwhile and you're talking shit. More lies and misinformation from you.
Shell writes:
You've explained nothing to me!
I'm not surprised. You don't read, avoid reading, can't read or can't understand. Take your pick.
Shell writes:
All you've done is refer me to your selective sights, and tell me that they will answer all my questions.
That's "sites" not "sights".
Since I can't question your sites, and you don't have a clue, I'm stuck with listening to all your insults and bluffs.You should have at least enough understanding of your own articles, TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEM!
The references I gave you throughout this argument over two threads say what they mean and mean what they say. Anyone reading them, well, apart from you, can understand them. I did explain in my own words where appropriate, I did quote understandable excerpts and gave you the reference to these excerpts if you wanted to look at the source more closely, and, of course, for practicality I left it for you to look at data because it would have been impracticable to dump it here.
Defend my references? WTF are you saying? References are there to support what I say or assert. I don't need to defend them. It's up to you to attack a reference if you think there's something wrong with it and offer something better.
This is what I wrote to which you attacked with the above:
"I've already answered this elsewhere and here. The vaccines protect you. Vaccinated people are less likely to get seriously ill or die from the virus. I referenced the NSW Health data in the other thread. I have already told you in this one that from that data the majority of hospitalisations come from the unvaccinated. And of the vaccinated that are in hospital those who have four shots represent a tiniest proportion. There are other real world studies."
Now scroll up for the reference. No, wait, I'll provide it again:
Vaccination status of cases, hospitalisations | covid19data.com.au
Vaccination status of cases, hospitalisations, ICU admission and deaths from Covid in Australia.
www.covid19data.com.au
I explained what I was looking at and referenced it so you or anyone else could check.
Shell writes:
Again, the problem with relying on statistics, is that the results can be interpreted in many ways. Using only the results as the premise, does not mean that the premise is true. It only means that the statistical facts are true. They do not explain the WHY OR THE HOW! No parameters were explained. No variables, exceptions, sample sizes, or contradictory results were included or mentioned. I can statistically prove that there have consistently been more female births than male births. Can I then conclude that the male population is in danger of dying out? Sure, I could! But is this true? There is a difference in what is statistically true, and what is actually true. This is how politicians spread their half-truths and disinformation(I.e., Black Americans commit 50% of all murders).
Pure bullshit.
If you're going to attack any statistics or data I provided in relation to this argument we're having, then provide an alternative interpretation or statistics and we can argue on something concrete, forget your nebulous waffle.
Shell writes:
I have never said that this vaccine doesn't do what it was designed to do. If you took a tiny rock and placed it under your skin, it would evoke an immune response. So yes, forcing muscle cells to produce viral spikes, WOULD evoke an immune response that would attack only that spike. These tiny innate antibodies don't think or discern. If you weren't born with it, they will attack it. This video is the best, and least complicated I could find to illustrate how the NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM WORKS! Vaccines play only a minor role in the system's overall function.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/video/immune-system-explained
.
Showing us a video about how the immune system works does speak to the value or efficacy of vaccines, especially the one we've been fighting over, namely, mRNA vaccines.
What you said obfuscates and attempts to misleadingly trivialise what vaccine mediated antibodies do when they, as you say, "only attack the spike". The fact that the vaccine mediated antiboides attack the viral spikes means that the virus is impeded in targeting, attaching and infecting the body's cells!!!! Moreover , it was found in research that the spikes in themselves cause harm.
Anything which attacks these spikes and blunts, degrades or destroys these spikes will help, no?
And this is why the vaccines have been efficacious in reducing illness and death. as indicated ,for example, by the cumulative hospital data already provided, again, above and in this post.
Shell writes:
The problem is, that you keep parroting that this vaccine saves lives, prevent infections, lessen the severity of symptoms, and will prevent transmission. THESE ARE ALL LIES!
No ,Shell, I've spelt it out and you're the one who comes up short. I've discussed the mechanism and given you real world data.
Shell writes:
Vaccinated people are still dying from, becoming reinfected with, having severe symptoms from, and are still spreading this virus.As well as unvaccinated people who are infected!
Yes, but to a lesser degree than the unvaccinated. Saying that they are dying says nothing against the fact that these vaccines have helped and are helping in mitigating death and reinfection. It was shown that the more shots you had the better the outcome. Refer again to the NSW hospitalisation data.
Shell writes:
The only rational explanation that explains this, is the condition of the patients immune system. Nothing to do with whether they are vaccinated or not.
You, yourself said:
"So yes, forcing muscle cells to produce viral spikes, WOULD evoke an immune response that would attack only that spike."
WTF... that's what vaccines do, evoke an immune response! They train the immune system to mount a response against a live virus by causing a response to attenuated or harmless antigens of viruses, which may include parts thereof or the whole. So when a virus attacks the body, the immune system can eliminate it before it does anything to compromise it.
Shell writes:
All vaccines are precautionary AT BEST, therapeutic SOMETIMES, and useless AT WORST(for those dead)!
And, there is nothing on this planet that can stop any virus from infecting you! Sorry, but these are the facts.
So, Shell, vaccines, you would agree, are "precautionary"or "therapeutic ". Do you know what these mean?
Here look at a dictionary:
Precautonary:
intended to prevent something unpleasant or dangerous from happening:
"Therapeutic"
"relating to the curing of a disease or medical condition"/"having a healing effect; tending to make a person healthier:"
You've strung as all along in trying to message that things that have been shown to help like vaccines,masks, sanitisers, social distancing are useless. That is, you were peddling your worst case scenario and preaching or suggesting at least there's no point in do any of it.
But that isn't true, is it Shell? And Real life experience, studies, experts and data have proved you wrong.
Vaccines may not be bullet proof method but by their use disease( and thereby illness and death) has been prevented or mitigated. Look at the success of vaccines for diseases like measles, polio and smallpox. Extremely successful.
With respect to the mRNA vaccines they have worked as other vaccines ( However, by using the novel means of inducing the muscle cells to create the antigens ). Again, look at the NSW cumulative data on hospitalisations and the distribution between vaccinated and unvaccinated. mRNA vaccines have been working!
However, it has been found that the antibodies wane over time, and that the viral spikes are mutating ( by and large due to unvaccinated people acting as reservoirs of mutations which can undermine vaccine induced immunity), and the older people their immune systems less effective in mounting the required response to the vaccine. So all that has necessitated booster shots. And it may necessitate periodic shots like we have with flu shots.
Just on your point on "nothing can prevent a virus from infecting you", I asked you what you meant by "infection". You haven't told me yet. I think by the way you've been using the term, you just mean that nothing can prevent a virus entering your body. (Well, that's not totally true.) In any case, it's meaningless as an argument or a suggestion against the use of vaccines and other measures. By using them, we have, in fact, prevented or mitigated disease. That's what this turns on not the mere fact that the virus entered into a body.
Through vaccines and other measures we get some protection and some protection is better than no protection. You have agreed by your own words to this with respect to mRNA vaccines. In respect of what I've written on masks, it would be reasonable to agree. Sanitisers, social distancing , hand washing with soap and water aren't in reasonable dispute in what you've written anywhere and certainly not where the experts are concerned.
I think, then, there's no more discussion to be had.
Last edited:
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
As I've said and demonstrated before, states can be manipulated(adding multipliers) and misinterpreted. So, Stats can certainly lie and mislead. I can give you many examples of this.
Firstly it is not the virus that kills you, it's your own immune system's response. But lets just assume that no one is immunocompromised, or has 4 or 5 other comorbidities, and is generally in good health. Would you think a virus where over 99% of its victims survive, could overwhelm a healthy immune system? Again, this is just my opinion!
I'd like to say that vaccines give you a 2 day early warning buffer. But if you diabetic, sporting a triple heart bypass, suffering from cancer, and on anti-rejection meds, recovery would be a lot less certain. There are many other factors and variables that can reduce ones chances of becoming seriously ill. Vaccines are just one of them.
Thank you, and my condolences as well.
I've never had any objections to any traditional vaccines. And, have explained why. But this vaccine is NOT a traditional vaccine at all. I also think that the elephant in the room you're ignoring, is that there shouldn't even be a vaxxed vs unveaxxed death rate.
Exactly Seth. I have taken to skipping over the reams of crap Shell posts.
Lols
Active member
Just a follow up… there’s no further info about this young girl’s death in Mornington on Thursday. It got very little attention on ch 9 news only. Now I’m wondering if it’s a suicide? The Rocks. Isn’t there a place in Sydney similar where many do suicide off The Rocks? When we did a tour around Sydney, we went to walk to see the view from there… only to have many signs along the way to seek help/support etc
Obviously to try and deter suicidal thoughts.
I just felt so sad.
And Thursday … once the police helicopter retrieved the body… and it flew overhead… I said… there goes the chopper with a body…and thought of all the family and friends sadness that knew/loved her.
I came across some interesting reading the other night. It's called the Anti-Vax Playbook.
You can download it here:
If you take Shell's ramblings on a whole she fits the general pattern of an anti-vaxxer approach:
1. Covid is not dangerous- (Sorry, Shell this is false)
2. Covid vaccine is dangerous/unethical-(Sorry, Shell, this is false)
3. The Medical authorites, experts /statistic/research are not to be trusted.- (Sorry, Shell this is false)
She is full of crap in all 3 areas and a danger to the community. I think videos like this put the lie to her ramblings:
I endorse HBS's approach:
"Exactly Seth. I have taken to skipping over the reams of crap Shell posts."
You can download it here:
If you take Shell's ramblings on a whole she fits the general pattern of an anti-vaxxer approach:
1. Covid is not dangerous- (Sorry, Shell this is false)
2. Covid vaccine is dangerous/unethical-(Sorry, Shell, this is false)
3. The Medical authorites, experts /statistic/research are not to be trusted.- (Sorry, Shell this is false)
She is full of crap in all 3 areas and a danger to the community. I think videos like this put the lie to her ramblings:
I endorse HBS's approach:
"Exactly Seth. I have taken to skipping over the reams of crap Shell posts."
Last edited:
Most new members here try With Shell for the first week or two, after that they all take that approach
Most new members here try With Shell for the first week or two, after that they all take that approach
It's not just the newbies. We've all had a go around the mulberry bush ... us sheeples.
Shellandshilo1956
Active member
Because I understand the weakness of the human condition, I know just how easy its perception of reality can be altered. I try to rely on facts, truisms, and my intuitive logic. Not my biases, feelings, or my beliefs.
I know that there is nothing that man can do to stop any virus from infecting him.
I know that over 95% of anyone infected by this virus have recovered in 2-3 weeks.
I know that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 34x smaller than the spectrum of white light.
I know that barring viral shedding, there is no other transmission method mechanism for asymptomatic carriers to spread it.
I know that states are required to list any person dying WITH Covid-19, as dying FROM Covid-19. And, to ignore any secondary causes.
I know that a 100% vaccinated nation, only means that those infected, dying, transmitting, and developing serious symptoms, will be only the vaccinated.
I know that only the condition of our immune system, and our overall health, will determine our survivability from this illness. NOT SIMPLY A VACCINE!
There is no way I can just ignore, or rationalize away these truisms. But I do understand how the human condition allows others to. They are called the "illusionary truth", "group conformity" and "obedience to authority". Here are a few examples(experiments) of how easily the human condition can be manipulated to believe anything.
But hey, it is easier to say that I am just repetitious, and that you have addressed the obvious. This is also "cognitive ease". Fortunately hundreds of thousands of us, are NOT so easily manipulated.
I know that there is nothing that man can do to stop any virus from infecting him.
I know that over 95% of anyone infected by this virus have recovered in 2-3 weeks.
I know that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 34x smaller than the spectrum of white light.
I know that barring viral shedding, there is no other transmission method mechanism for asymptomatic carriers to spread it.
I know that states are required to list any person dying WITH Covid-19, as dying FROM Covid-19. And, to ignore any secondary causes.
I know that a 100% vaccinated nation, only means that those infected, dying, transmitting, and developing serious symptoms, will be only the vaccinated.
I know that only the condition of our immune system, and our overall health, will determine our survivability from this illness. NOT SIMPLY A VACCINE!
There is no way I can just ignore, or rationalize away these truisms. But I do understand how the human condition allows others to. They are called the "illusionary truth", "group conformity" and "obedience to authority". Here are a few examples(experiments) of how easily the human condition can be manipulated to believe anything.
But hey, it is easier to say that I am just repetitious, and that you have addressed the obvious. This is also "cognitive ease". Fortunately hundreds of thousands of us, are NOT so easily manipulated.