Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

Oceanslider said:
This is the way I always do a YouTube using VLC
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks, I have done it that way too, just much easier with a Downloader...Loader.to has gone down a few times so I use VLC then...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat200, Ssayer and Oceanslider
bigredfish said:
The secret Hitler Society, otherwise known as the Austrian Government, will now start pulling people over in their cars and issuing fines for not being stupid enough to get jabbed being unvaccinated.

INSANE: Austrian Government Authorizes Dystopian Vaccine Registry and Imposes COVID Restrictions Through January 2024 - Will Begin Pulling Drivers Over at RANDOM and FINING UN-BOOSTED Citizens Next Month

This week, Austrian President Czar Alexander Van der Bellen imposed new Covid restrictions that require all adults in the country to be fully vaccinated and boosted or risk being fined.

The new authoritarian law runs through January 31st, 2024, and will go into effect next month

Beginning on March 15th, law enforcement authorities will begin checking people’s vaccine status by conducting random traffic stops, and spot checks, in order to find dissenters. Anyone caught violating the mandate can be fined “up to four times a year,” with the penalty increasing with each violation. An individual’s first offense will result in a €600 (~$687) fine and can go as high as €3,400 (~$3,890) by the fourth.

According to reports starting on March 15, authorities will begin conducting random checks for vaccination certificates, including traffic stops.
Click to expand...
Austria fell quickly prey to the Nazi's back in WW2, did they not learn anything? Very Sad...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, Paul Hacker, mat200 and 3 others
bigredfish said:
Except “cases” are meaningless.

What I mean by that is 1) tests are unreliable 2) how does one know the percentage of either cohort tests more or less often than the other? Also I could posit that a greater percentage of unjabbed “test” than jabbed due to the false sense of security of being vaccinated 3) do you trust government counters?
Click to expand...
I have heard of two cases in my family/friends of going to one location and testing positive and then another testing negative, in this case the person got Covid back in 2020 and when she tested positive this year she called her Doctor who said to go get retested at another location recommended by her Doctor which she tested negative. The Doc told her this happens a lot.
The second was a family member who tested negative twice and then tested positive, they had full symptoms during all three test, the first two was labeled by the Doc as a Viral Infection. So who Really knows...
 
  • Like
Reactions: gwminor48, Paul Hacker, TVille and 4 others
  • Sad
  • Angry
Reactions: gwminor48, Paul Hacker, mat200 and 3 others
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Paul Hacker, David L, TVille and 2 others
  • Angry
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Paul Hacker, David L, gwminor48 and 3 others
They political left will never give in to admitting that that the citizens are allowed any influence. After all, if the people "win" one time, they might try it again.

Freedom Convoy Triumphs as Canadian Mandates Fall

"Premier Jason Kenney of Alberta, scene of a vigorous Freedom Convoy protest at a vital border crossing with the United States, announced the end of its vaccine passports on Tuesday........."

“The program is no longer serving a useful and compelling purpose,” Kenney said of vaccine passports. “I could not stand in front of Albertans tonight and justify a continuation of a program that has done its job.”

“None of that has to do anything with a few trucks parked at the Coutts border crossing,” he added.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Paul Hacker, David L, gwminor48 and 6 others
"Children who are vaccinated against COVID-19 are significantly less likely to be infected by the virus, according to a new study by Multnomah County epidemiologists. They found that children who were fully vaccinated were 73% less likely to be infected, compared to children who were unvaccinated."

73% less likely to be infected. This sounds impressive, but I wonder if anybody reading it knows what it means? I have a hard time with it. My best guess is if for example 1,000 out of 100,000 in an unvaxxed group caught covid, the count would instead be 270 if the group was vaxxed. But what are the real numbers? Without knowing how many in the group would catch covid, how serious it would be, and what the comparative risks of the vax are, this "73% less likely" declaration is a bunch of meaningless bull$hit packaged as an impressive sounding number that few will understand what it means anyway.


COVID vaccine offers powerful protection for kids, Multnomah County study finds
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: bigredfish, David L, gwminor48 and 4 others
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: TVille, David L, gwminor48 and 2 others

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com

130+ UK Doctors: Failed COVID Policies Caused "Massive" Harm, Especially To Children


2. Institutional nature of COVID
It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease, as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS.
Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.
Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.
Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.
Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

3. The exaggerated nature of the threat
Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.
The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.
Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born.
This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.
Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate.
Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.
The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.
Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.
You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense — hundreds of millions of pounds.
The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

4. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere
The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed.
For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.
Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.
Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.
Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: samplenhold, gwminor48, Ssayer and 6 others
And a reminder for the 3-4 people left in the country stupid enough to believe anything that comes from the mouth of the self important Dr Fraudci

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Sad
Reactions: mcapeed, Paul Hacker, TVille and 7 others
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcapeed, David L, Ssayer and 4 others

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Documents Expose Pharma Effort To Kill Africa's COVID Vaccine Project


Documents published Wednesday by a prominent medical journal reveal that a foundation representing the German company BioNTech—Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine partner—has been working behind the scenes to undercut African scientists' burgeoning effort to produce an mRNA-based coronavirus vaccine.

In August, according to The BMJ, the kENUP Foundation urged South African government officials to shut down a World Health Organization-backed initiative aiming to make an mRNA vaccine using Moderna's shot as a template. "The WHO Vaccine Technology Transfer Hub's project of copying the manufacturing process of Moderna's Covid-19 vaccine should be terminated immediately. This is to prevent damage to Afrigen, BioVac, and Moderna," the kENUP Foundation wrote in a 20-page document, referring to two South African companies taking part in the vaccine effort.
 
  • Angry
  • Sad
Reactions: David L, SouthernYankee, Ssayer and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom