Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[FallingAwake]

Even the most ardent covid-vaccine sceptic (i.e. me) would have to admit that the vaccines are offering some level of protection in terms of hospitalisation. There have also been plenty of studies done showing the level of protection over time. (I don't think they're faking the numbers.)

My main concern is... at what cost? Are we reaping something worse than covid because of them? The only way to tell is to continue this "Great Experiment" since that's the only way we'll know the long-term effects, and people seem willing enough to continue getting jabbed, every 5-6 months or whatever it'll be.

I would simply add that it looks like a lot of fear is being exploited here. And now the media are ramping up the FLU again ("60,000 could die this winter!") even though there have been virtually NO hospitalisations of flu the past 18 months or so (or maybe they didn't bother counting them, because there was a CoronaCrisis running)? It's almost like the media need fear to sell their rags, and the government needs fear to gain compliance.

[Ah-so]

2 hours ago, The Spaniard said:

Maybe you can hold your nose  and follow some of the comments under this bitchute (😮) video?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JNqNzYgKzxpS/

Perhaps a FOI request to the NSW Supreme Court might yield confirmation?

Also, here's a sample from the YouTube channel mentioned in one comment as the proximal source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9tAI7D

2 hours ago, The Spaniard said:

Maybe you can hold your nose  and follow some of the comments under this bitchute (😮) video?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/JNqNzYgKzxpS/

Perhaps a FOI request to the NSW Supreme Court might yield confirmation?

Also, here's a sample from the YouTube channel mentioned in one comment as the proximal source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9tAI7DhZc0

My best guess is that YouTube would not publish the court dialogue, hence his resort to bitchute.

hZc0

My best guess is that YouTube would not publish the court dialogue, hence his resort to bitchute.

One might think if this dialogue was genuine, the original documentation might be a bit easier to track down. 

It's a document, and presumably a public one at that - I don't see why it needs to be on Bitchute only. 

But either way, I don't believe that there is any evidence that the vaccine makes you 13 times more likely to catch COVID-19. Probably the opposite. 

I will file the supposed dialogue under misinformation until I hear otherwise. 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

1 hour ago, FallingAwake said:

Even the most ardent covid-vaccine sceptic (i.e. me) would have to admit that the vaccines are offering some level of protection in terms of hospitalisation. There have also been plenty of studies done showing the level of protection over time. (I don't think they're faking the numbers.)

My main concern is... at what cost? Are we reaping something worse than covid because of them? The only way to tell is to continue this "Great Experiment" since that's the only way we'll know the long-term effects, and people seem willing enough to continue getting jabbed, every 5-6 months or whatever it'll be.

I would simply add that it looks like a lot of fear is being exploited here. And now the media are ramping up the FLU again ("60,000 could die this winter!") even though there have been virtually NO hospitalisations of flu the past 18 months or so (or maybe they didn't bother counting them, because there was a CoronaCrisis running)? It's almost like the media need fear to sell their rags, and the government needs fear to gain compliance.

Certainly I'm not bothering to get a flu jab. Firstly, I don't qualify and secondly I am fairly confident my immunity to flu is exceptionally high. 

The real issue here is that the 100,000 of so saved by lockdown and jabs for COVID will probably be killed by the flu or something in the next 2 years  anyway - these are people on the margin between life and death. I don't think all the effort and cost was worth it. 

[dances with sheeple]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

And after it, such as right now, where cases seems to wobbling up and down but showing no strong tendency to  continual exponential growth despite a large proportion of people going on about life as normal, and far fewer people dropping dead than at the start of the year despite the level of cases. You've really got to go through some very far-fetched mental gymnastics and leaps of faith to dismiss the idea that that's down to vaccination (probably via the "latch on to one possible other contributing factor and throw away everything else" level of nonsense that far too many people are apt to engage with).

Nah, a lot of people are still being very careful, I`ve been on empty buses in the middle of the city recently, in the middle of the day midweek, that isn`t normal but if you want to pretend to yourself that things have gone back to how they were because there is an injection people can get be my guest.

[dances with sheeple]

8 hours ago, Will! said:

And afterwards.

So about 18 months of lockdown V a couple of months of "freedom" at the height of summer when people are outside getting vitamin D, right, LOL.

[Drat]

21 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

https://www.channel4.com/news/covid-cases-rising-as-vaccine-rollout-appears-to-be-faltering

 

When will they admit that it was lockdown and more stringent distancing measures that dropped infections? Nightclubs and Uni`s should never have re-opened at this stage, schools should have been on a much slower staged return with zoom etc. being used more effectively, they could have organised distanced "social/teaching groups" for parents/teachers/pupils who couldn`t handle the "isolation" LOL and they should have been shaming people who jumped on planes to top up their tan and their beer belly rather than people who had genuine reservations about a hastily cobbled together vaccine program.

So here you argue that lock down is the only way to stop infection rates rising and we should have more lock down

10 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

Nah, a lot of people are still being very careful, I`ve been on empty buses in the middle of the city recently, in the middle of the day midweek, that isn`t normal but if you want to pretend to yourself that things have gone back to how they were because there is an injection people can get be my guest.

And here you argue that infection rates are not rising despite the lack of lock down because people are still being careful

So which is it, or do you just adapt your arguments situation dependant as long as it supports your narrative on vaccinations?

[dances with sheeple]

2 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

Even the most ardent covid-vaccine sceptic (i.e. me) would have to admit that the vaccines are offering some level of protection in terms of hospitalisation. There have also been plenty of studies done showing the level of protection over time. (I don't think they're faking the numbers.)

My main concern is... at what cost? Are we reaping something worse than covid because of them? The only way to tell is to continue this "Great Experiment" since that's the only way we'll know the long-term effects, and people seem willing enough to continue getting jabbed, every 5-6 months or whatever it'll be.

I would simply add that it looks like a lot of fear is being exploited here. And now the media are ramping up the FLU again ("60,000 could die this winter!") even though there have been virtually NO hospitalisations of flu the past 18 months or so (or maybe they didn't bother counting them, because there was a CoronaCrisis running)? It's almost like the media need fear to sell their rags, and the government needs fear to gain compliance.

Or could it be the hot weather/Vit D and people being outside instead maybe? I think the numbers willing to be continually jabbed will dwindle quite quickly (Large numbers of Key workers/teachers etc. in the U.S already not keen to play ball?) 

[dances with sheeple]

5 minutes ago, Drat said:

So here you argue that lock down is the only way to stop infection rates rising and we should have more lock down

And here you argue that infection rates are not rising despite the lack of lock down because people are still being careful

So which is it, or do you just adapt your arguments situation dependant as long as it supports your narrative on vaccinations?

"Nah, a lot of people are still being very careful, I`ve been on empty buses in the middle of the city recently, in the middle of the day midweek, that isn`t normal but if you want to pretend to yourself that things have gone back to how they were because there is an injection people can get be my guest."

Can you point out where I say infection rates are not rising?

[Drat]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

And after it, such as right now, where cases seems to wobbling up and down but showing no strong tendency to  continual exponential growth despite a large proportion of people going on about life as normal, and far fewer people dropping dead than at the start of the year despite the level of cases. You've really got to go through some very far-fetched mental gymnastics and leaps of faith to dismiss the idea that that's down to vaccination (probably via the "latch on to one possible other contributing factor and throw away everything else" level of nonsense that far too many people are apt to engage with).

 

1 hour ago, dances with sheeple said:

Nah, a lot of people are still being very careful, I`ve been on empty buses in the middle of the city recently, in the middle of the day midweek, that isn`t normal but if you want to pretend to yourself that things have gone back to how they were because there is an injection people can get be my guest.

 

54 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

"Nah, a lot of people are still being very careful, I`ve been on empty buses in the middle of the city recently, in the middle of the day midweek, that isn`t normal but if you want to pretend to yourself that things have gone back to how they were because there is an injection people can get be my guest."

Can you point out where I say infection rates are not rising?

There you go, I have now quoted the post from Riedquat you were replying to.  Sorry, I assumed you would have remembered.

He said cases are wobbling but not rising and it is because of the vaccine, you said no it is because people are still being cautious. Goes against your earlier post where you said we need more lock down to stop cases rising.

I think you just say anything that supports your view that the jabs don't work, even if what you say contradicts something you said earlier (which was also said to support your view the jab doesn't work). 

[scottbeard]

3 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

Are we reaping something worse than covid because of them? The only way to tell is to continue this "Great Experiment" since that's the only way we'll know the long-term effects, and people seem willing enough to continue getting jabbed, every 5-6 months or whatever it'll be.

This is why the right approach is just to let people be jabbed who want to be, and not jabbed if they don't want to be.

Then you wouldn't have to worry about the "Great Experiment" - you just decline a vaccination and let others have one if they want to.

I have no problem with vaccinations, or with people who decline them.  I dislike all this vaccine passport nonsense.  Let people decide individually.

3 hours ago, FallingAwake said:

I would simply add that it looks like a lot of fear is being exploited here. And now the media are ramping up the FLU again ("60,000 could die this winter!") even though there have been virtually NO hospitalisations of flu the past 18 months or so (or maybe they didn't bother counting them, because there was a CoronaCrisis running)? It's almost like the media need fear to sell their rags, and the government needs fear to gain compliance.

Yes because that's because everyone was social distancing, mask wearing and hand sanitising every 5 minutes, instead of what they usually do in November/December i.e. pack as tightly as possible in pubs, drink alcohol to weaken their immune system, and snog colleagues at the office Christmas party.  It's hardly fear mongering to suggest flu figures will get back to normal as behaviour gets back to normal...

[Bruce Banner]

5 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

This is why the right approach is just to let people be jabbed who want to be, and not jabbed if they don't want to be.

Then you wouldn't have to worry about the "Great Experiment" - you just decline a vaccination and let others have one if they want to.

I have no problem with vaccinations, or with people who decline them.  I dislike all this vaccine passport nonsense.  Let people decide individually.

 

It's getting crazy on the TV news today. Massive push, Covid jabs, flu jabs, you name it we must have it, to protect the NHS.

I always thought that the NHS was there to protect us.

[Ah-so]

37 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

It's getting crazy on the TV news today. Massive push, Covid jabs, flu jabs, you name it we must have it, to protect the NHS.

I always thought that the NHS was there to protect us.

By protecting ourselves, we protect the NHS. 

They are right to be cautious - if there is a severe winter flu season, combined with those in hospital for COVID-19, it will add additional strain on resources. 

COVID does make things a lot more difficult for hospitals - they need to have separate COVID wards to keep the infected and staff who look after them separate, even if you are in for something else entirely (such as giving birth)  and not showing major symptoms. That can add major logistical problems in a hospital because they need to add further physical separation. You can't put people without COVID in the COVID wing, but if you start running out of space in the non-covid section, because of a bad flu year, it creates a problem. 

 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

48 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

It's getting crazy on the TV news today. Massive push, Covid jabs, flu jabs, you name it we must have it, to protect the NHS.

I always thought that the NHS was there to protect us.

I'm not sure why you would expect them to do otherwise.

They have a jab that saves lives, saves money and will help to ensure that a crucial service is not overwhelmed.

Would you really not expect them to promote it to the best of their ability if they believed it would do all these things ?

[Bruce Banner]

23 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

By protecting ourselves, we protect the NHS. 

They are right to be cautious - if there is a severe winter flu season, combined with those in hospital for COVID-19, it will add additional strain on resources. 

COVID does make things a lot more difficult for hospitals - they need to have separate COVID wards to keep the infected and staff who look after them separate, even if you are in for something else entirely (such as giving birth)  and not showing major symptoms. That can add major logistical problems in a hospital because they need to add further physical separation. You can't put people without COVID in the COVID wing, but if you start running out of space in the non-covid section, because of a bad flu year, it creates a problem. 

 

20 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I'm not sure why you would expect them to do otherwise.

They have a jab that saves lives, saves money and will help to ensure that a crucial service is not overwhelmed.

Would you really not expect them to promote it to the best of their ability if they believed it would do all these things ?

How many jabs a year would you consider acceptable?

[dances with sheeple]

1 hour ago, Drat said:

 

 

There you go, I have now quoted the post from Riedquat you were replying to.  Sorry, I assumed you would have remembered.

He said cases are wobbling but not rising and it is because of the vaccine, you said no it is because people are still being cautious. Goes against your earlier post where you said we need more lock down to stop cases rising.

I think you just say anything that supports your view that the jabs don't work, even if what you say contradicts something you said earlier (which was also said to support your view the jab doesn't work). 

No, I said people are not returning to normal as in "normal" before Covid in response to.....

"despite a large proportion of people going on about life as normal "

It is you who added the bit about this relating to rising or otherwise cases. I am just saying that IMO many people have modified their behaviour.

[Ah-so]

28 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

How many jabs a year would you consider acceptable?

It rather depends on context and proportionality. It's not like you are even being made to pay for them - you are being offered free preventative treatment that might save the life of an older gentleman like you.

You obviously take the view that zero jabs a year is acceptable in your own case. Why do you fret about others? Let them make up their own mind about what minor inconvenience they are prepared to put up with to avoid major illness or death.

[Ah-so]

1 hour ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I'm not sure why you would expect them to do otherwise.

They have a jab that saves lives, saves money and will help to ensure that a crucial service is not overwhelmed.

Would you really not expect them to promote it to the best of their ability if they believed it would do all these things ?

Dr R: "we are really concerned that the flu season this year could be really bad and exceed the capacity of the NHS, especially with COVD still around"

Dr N: "I totally agree, but luckily we have a great vaccine for it, but we just need to vaccinated as many of the at-risk people as we can. Perhaps we should advertise it to remind people to get it and get the media interested"

Person A: "No how dare you offer me a vaccine it's like Nazi Germany I mean would you give it to your children and who have you tested it on and what about VAERS reports this could kill me and I'm not going to die of flu because I've got natural immunity so don't need your vaccine and I bet the Chinese made it and why are you always trying to jab people we lived for thousands of years without jabs and never came to any harm and this guy on Facebook said that in Australia they admitted it was much more dangerous to take the vaccine than not and...[cough, cough, cough] sorry...I don't feel very well...I've got a fever coming on...I might go and lie down."

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Ah-so

[winkie]

Not necessarily saying it is wrong in the case of CoVid 19, but being away from other people and wearing masks and disinfecting everything is not healthy......we are supposed to be exposed to viruses to build up immunity giving people a healthy and robust immune system that they need now and into the future.....not being naturally exposed to all sorts of existing and natural viruses will see the possibility of greater future infection in the community if and when a particularly infections difficult virus appears or mutates......it is right that we catch viruses and build a natural resistance to them in the future.....makes us stronger health-wise.

[Ah-so]

23 minutes ago, winkie said:

Not necessarily saying it is wrong in the case of CoVid 19, but being away from other people and wearing masks and disinfecting everything is not healthy......we are supposed to be exposed to viruses to build up immunity giving people a healthy and robust immune system that they need now and into the future.....not being naturally exposed to all sorts of existing and natural viruses will see the possibility of greater future infection in the community if and when a particularly infections difficult virus appears or mutates......it is right that we catch viruses and build a natural resistance to them in the future.....makes us stronger health-wise.

Given that lockdown has finished and hardly anyone is wearing a mask any more, I don't think this is something to worry about any more, even though I do agree with the concern more broadly.

[Bruce Banner]

36 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

It rather depends on context and proportionality. It's not like you are even being made to pay for them - you are being offered free preventative treatment that might save the life of an older gentleman like you.

You obviously take the view that zero jabs a year is acceptable in your own case. Why do you fret about others? Let them make up their own mind about what minor inconvenience they are prepared to put up with to avoid major illness or death.

And the answer is? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...........20, more?

When does it go beyond being a minor inconvenience?

As for "Let them make up their own mind", that's rich coming from you.

 

[dances with sheeple]

1 minute ago, Ah-so said:

Dr M: "we are really concerned that the flu season this year could be really bad and exceed the capacity of the NHS, especially with COVD still around"

Dr N: "I totally agree, but luckily we have a great vaccine for it, but we just need to vaccinated as many of the at-risk people as we can. Perhaps we should advertise it to remind people to get it and get the media interested"

Person X: "No how dare you offer me a vaccine it's like Nazi Germany I mean would you give it to your children and who have you tested it on and what about VAERS reports this could kill me and I'm not going to die of flu because I've got natural immunity so don't need your vaccine and I bet the Chinese made it and why are you always trying to jab people we lived for thousands of years without jabs and never came to any harm and this guy on Facebook said that in Australia they admitted it was much more dangerous to take the vaccine than not and...[cough] sorry...I don't feel very well...I've got a fever coming on...I might go and lie down."

 

Let`s see how winter goes, pretending that a vaccine is "great" in the height of summer  doesn`t really cut it for me TBH.

[Bruce Banner]

16 hours ago, Ah-so said:

Dr R: "we are really concerned that the flu season this year could be really bad and exceed the capacity of the NHS, especially with COVD still around"

Dr N: "I totally agree, but luckily we have a great vaccine for it, but we just need to vaccinated as many of the at-risk people as we can. Perhaps we should advertise it to remind people to get it and get the media interested"

Person A: "No how dare you offer me a vaccine it's like Nazi Germany I mean would you give it to your children and who have you tested it on and what about VAERS reports this could kill me and I'm not going to die of flu because I've got natural immunity so don't need your vaccine and I bet the Chinese made it and why are you always trying to jab people we lived for thousands of years without jabs and never came to any harm and this guy on Facebook said that in Australia they admitted it was much more dangerous to take the vaccine than not and...[cough, cough, cough] sorry...I don't feel very well...I've got a fever coming on...I might go and lie down."

 

Babble worthy of BJ himself .

Edited October 9, 2021 by Bruce Banner

[winkie]

1 hour ago, Ah-so said:

Given that lockdown has finished and hardly anyone is wearing a mask any more, I don't think this is something to worry about any more, even though I do agree with the concern more broadly.

Hope you are right......not looking good for this winter when wanting to avoid filling hospital beds, shortage of doctors and nurses, dormant viruses, people losing immunity and to top it all high price for fuel meaning those most vulnerable frightened of what their fuel bill might be so might not stay warm enough and end up in hospital......then we have the breaking social care system to finish it off........all that with people not always getting the cancer diagnosis and treatment they should be getting....... doesn't look good does it.

[Arpeggio]

2 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

Let`s see how winter goes, pretending that a vaccine is "great" in the height of summer  doesn`t really cut it for me TBH.

 

Week 24

 

Week 25 baseline raised  (red lines for comparison to week 39)

 

Week 39 baseline raised

Sean Hartman: 17-Year-Old Boy Dies Shortly After Receiving The COVID-19 Vaccine

Washington woman died from rare blood clotting syndrome after receiving Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, local health agency says

Pfizer Lobbying Hits Decade High as DOZENS of High-Profile Political Appointees Become Big Pharma Reps.

Lateral flow tests: Scores more report positive rapid Covid tests followed by negative PCRs as mystery deepens

 

3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

And the answer is? 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...........20, more?

When does it go beyond being a minor inconvenience?

As for "Let them make up their own mind", that's rich coming from you.

That's a pretty extensive trial. 20 jabs of Moderna with 100µg mRNA or Pfizer with 30µg mRNA? or mix it up with both.

With Israel doing a 4th jab maybe you could get up to 8 to 10 jabs in there before the trial ends in 2023.

If people with long Covid are given a jab every month then 12 per. If new jabs can be made in 40 days, then theoretically 9 jabs a year.

Then there's the flu shot, and if the "Marburg virus" project gets running there's a vaccine with genetically modified Ricin being rushed for that. Over 12 companies are working on treatments for that despite less than 20 people dying from it since 2005.

[Arpeggio]

This would correlate with the Ambulance Survey:  https://www.bitchute.com/video/LsVvjAqYl46L/

 

(Shedding, it's in Pfizer's document)

COVID Vaccine Injury - Woman Speaks About Her Heart Condition & Warns Others

Covid vaccine causes blood clots, stroke heart attack - a story of a first-line doctor

Guy Has BOILS On His Body After "Vaccine" JAB-- Even His Picture Was Censored

Child dies reportedly after taking vaccine in Guyana

 

4 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

Let`s see how winter goes, pretending that a vaccine is "great" in the height of summer  doesn`t really cut it for me TBH.

June 11, 2021 More COVID-19 deaths have already been reported in 2021 than in all of 2020

At that point most of the vulnerable known for dying of / with PCR19 would have been fully vaccinated and the vaccines were "more effective", prior to "losing their efficacy".

Edited October 8, 2021 by Arpeggio