Mainstream Media Vs the culture of resuuuuurch.

@guysmiley when you say something followed by a 'but' you are denying the initial statement or at least, making it very conditional. So what are you trying to say? That you accept the verdict by people whose integrity then needs to be questioned due to potential biases to conservatism? That doesn't make any sense, if integrity is in question then the decision is in question as well. So are you questioning this decision or not?

And this is a New York state supreme court decision. The judges are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate so nothing do with the president.

Wow. Seeming it was and still is very difficult to get a doctor to sign off vaccine injuries this figure should be a wake up call to everyone.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/covid-vaccine-inj...

The figure was quietly buried in the Services Australia portfolio budget statement, in a table detailing third-party payments from the agency “on behalf of other entities”.

No axe to grind here guys just asking the question

burleigh wrote:

Wow. Seeming it was and still is very difficult to get a doctor to sign off vaccine injuries this figure should be a wake up call to everyone.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/covid-vaccine-inj...

The figure was quietly buried in the Services Australia portfolio budget statement, in a table detailing third-party payments from the agency “on behalf of other entities”.

Yep. There’s more lies coming to the surface. Thing is there’s probably many more people eligible that don’t realise they’re even eligible , aren’t aware of the scheme or aren’t prone to chasing the money from the government for fear of looking like bludgers.
My Mum falls into the latter category. I’ve looked into the scheme, contacted the department and she is 100% eligible for the maximum payment. She doesn’t want to pursue it because A / She’s of the mindset that she will look and feel like a scab. B / She doesn’t want to be a bother.
I find the whole deal infuriating but what can you do? She’s a big girl so it’s her decision. No point getting into a blue with my poor old mum over that shit.

DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:

Bit of a mixed up world when the decision to reverse a law denying people their source of income based on an institutionalised lie is considered the purview of “extreme conservatives.

Being fired fro:m your job is no small thing . It’s one of the most disruptive and stressful things which can happen to someone. The ensuing financial stress breaks up marriages and homes. It leaves people confused, lost and dismayed and that’s before you even factor in their I ability to replace that job due to the same institutional fraud used to push a corporate product.

I hope the victims of the vaccine discrimination seek hefty punitive damages in civil court. Time to bring the chickens home to roost for the systemic persecution of otherwise completely innocent civilians trying to go about their lives.

Yeah, imagine putting all that on the line due to a flimsy belief gained through social media research.

burleigh wrote:

Wow. Seeming it was and still is very difficult to get a doctor to sign off vaccine injuries this figure should be a wake up call to everyone.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/covid-vaccine-inj...

The figure was quietly buried in the Services Australia portfolio budget statement, in a table detailing third-party payments from the agency “on behalf of other entities”.

Hardly a wake up call. The scheme was to assist with wages and other expenses if people feel a bit unwell after their vaccine. Given that most people felt a bit off for a day or two after a vax, it's quite likely that hundreds of Thousands of people had to incur expenses. The beuracrats got it wrong.

Not any sign of control, or a big lie etc.

p.s. are we believing MSM now? Or do you just listen to them when they suit your beliefs?

Stok wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Wow. Seeming it was and still is very difficult to get a doctor to sign off vaccine injuries this figure should be a wake up call to everyone.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/covid-vaccine-inj...
Pay close attention to the link "whats not covered"

The figure was quietly buried in the Services Australia portfolio budget statement, in a table detailing third-party payments from the agency “on behalf of other entities”.

Hardly a wake up call. The scheme was to assist with wages and other expenses if people feel a bit unwell after their vaccine. Given that most people felt a bit off for a day or two after a vax, it's quite likely that hundreds of Thousands of people had to incur expenses. The beuracrats got it wrong.

Not any sign of control, or a big lie etc.

p.s. are we believing MSM now? Or do you just listen to them when they suit your beliefs?

Stok the resident imbecile has come out of the blocks flying today.

You really believe the 80x blowout is because people missed a couple of days of work? You are wrong....... AGAIN

Here is a small section from the article:
But potential applicants and legal experts have criticised it as overly complex and difficult to access, since a medical professional is required to sign off on documentation linking the reaction to the vaccine, and only a small number of officially recognised side effects such as myocarditis are covered.

People who have suffered an eligible clinical condition or injury and can claim losses of between $1000 and $19,999 under tier one.
Tier two covers those who suffered injury or loss over $20,000.
Tier three covers vaccine recipients who died if the vaccine was proved to have caused or materially contributed to the death, and can include funeral costs.

Here is a link to see whats covered: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/who-can-get-support-under-covid-19-...

What's your next excuse going to be?

I don't know what the 80x blowout is for, I just said it seems like they got it wrong. When you're vaccinating almost all of Australia, allowing for circa $900k for any cost relating to side effects is way too low.

Also - of course a doctor should sign off, how else would you propose? Let anyone rock up and claim whatever they want?

Still keen to hear why all of a sudden MSM is a legit source of info, to hang off every word on. Have the elites cut off their funding to them now?

burleigh squawking daily on SN is not staying silent...ok, gotcha.

Stok wrote:

I don't know what the 80x blowout is for, I just said it seems like they got it wrong. When you're vaccinating almost all of Australia, allowing for circa $900k for any cost relating to side effects is way too low.

Also - of course a doctor should sign off, how else would you propose? Let anyone rock up and claim whatever they want?

Still keen to hear why all of a sudden MSM is a legit source of info, to hang off every word on. Have the elites cut off their funding to them now?

back tracking faster than ever hey Stok.

Nothing like getting humbled by the tin foiled hat wearing Burleigh hey,

And no, i don't trust MSM but this was released in the budget last night. Surely a man of your stature would have been all over it.

This should be front page news across Australia.

burleigh wrote:

Stok wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Wow. Seeming it was and still is very difficult to get a doctor to sign off vaccine injuries this figure should be a wake up call to everyone.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget/covid-vaccine-inj...
Pay close attention to the link "whats not covered"

The figure was quietly buried in the Services Australia portfolio budget statement, in a table detailing third-party payments from the agency “on behalf of other entities”.

Hardly a wake up call. The scheme was to assist with wages and other expenses if people feel a bit unwell after their vaccine. Given that most people felt a bit off for a day or two after a vax, it's quite likely that hundreds of Thousands of people had to incur expenses. The beuracrats got it wrong.

Not any sign of control, or a big lie etc.

p.s. are we believing MSM now? Or do you just listen to them when they suit your beliefs?

Stok the resident imbecile has come out of the blocks flying today.

You really believe the 80x blowout is because people missed a couple of days of work?

Here is a small section from the article:
But potential applicants and legal experts have criticised it as overly complex and difficult to access, since a medical professional is required to sign off on documentation linking the reaction to the vaccine, and only a small number of officially recognised side effects such as myocarditis are covered.

People who have suffered an eligible clinical condition or injury and can claim losses of between $1000 and $19,999 under tier one.
Tier two covers those who suffered injury or loss over $20,000.
Tier three covers vaccine recipients who died if the vaccine was proved to have caused or materially contributed to the death, and can include funeral costs.

Here is a link to see whats covered: https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/who-can-get-support-under-covid-19-...

What's your next excuse going to be?

quite a few in here claimed to know someone who died from the vaccine...hope they let us know how much they get from the govt?

every covidiot claimed releatives died from the vax..if we are to believe them there will be 000's of payout due to death...some how I think their lies will be exposed as just lies

burleigh wrote:

AndyM wrote:

You're an incredibly brave and courageous individual Burls.
Hopefully we'll see you on a stamp one day :)

See what happens when you stand up for your fellow humans AndyM instead of letting the big guys trample all over you.

You should try it

Was it you who voted for Malcolm Roberts?
If that's what you call standing up for the little guy, count me out.

not only did burleigh vote for Roberts...he didn't know how preferences worked..lol

Hang on, I'm confused. I definitely must be missing something here...

The New York Supreme Court ruled that "being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19."

And didn't we find out the other day that the vaccine companies admitted that they didn't even test whether the vaccines reduce transmission?

But does everyone remember when we were relentlessly spammed and echoed day in day out for like a year with a barrage of "the vaccines reduce transmission" propaganda like this:

ABC article

National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance

NSW Government Communities and Justice

Where exactly were they getting the "science" from to make these claims?

Were they just making it all up?

@GSCO, reduce and prevent mean different things.

@Burleigh - no back tracking. So, you trust the budget as well? Aren't they they same lying pollies and public workers who played part in this mass corruption event? How can you trust them, and even their revised figure.

Could you imagine if their estimate got revised DOWN - I can almost hear the shrieks of 'LIES, COVER UPS!!!' if that had occurred.....

Haha, @gsco I guess that has been the discussion over the last xxx.. number of pages. The wording is the king, isn't it? Vocabulary like 'can also help', 'slows down the spread' mean that even if it does that at a 0.0000001% chance it is not technically incorrect. And now to prove it wrong someone needs to demonstrate that there is a 0% chance of limiting transmission. I know, stupid, scandalous, and morbid. But enough to keep the wheel spinning without committing to anything or jeopardizing employment for people who came out with this nonsense.

Stok wrote:

@GSCO, reduce and prevent mean different things.

@Burleigh - no back tracking. So, you trust the budget as well? Aren't they they same lying pollies and public workers who played part in this mass corruption event? How can you trust them, and even their revised figure.

Could you imagine if their estimate got revised DOWN - I can almost hear the shrieks of 'LIES, COVER UPS!!!' if that had occurred.....

On the previous page you said regarding vaccine payouts that:

“Hardly a wake up call. The scheme was to assist with wages and other expenses if people feel a bit unwell after their vaccine. Given that most people felt a bit off for a day or two after a vax, it's quite likely that hundreds of Thousands of people had to incur expenses. The beuracrats got it wrong”

Where did you get this information from? It couldn’t be further from the truth.

Surely a man as smart as you claim you are would have researched before posting this?

@Burleigh - me, research? Nahhhh. I just come here to poke holes in the extensive resuurch you and your pals do to try and build the case for the great big lie. Not at all in the same field, and not in anyway an expert. My comment was an assumption. No back tracking.

@flollo - absolutley wording is key, particularly when the premise of this thread is now 'THEY LIED!!!!' Nothing surprising there. Although your stated number of 0.00001% vs 0% is a bit ridiculous. The only evidence I've seen put forward here is MSM articles stating that Pfizer didn't run transmission tests (not sure how you'd actually do this in a clinical trial?). Haven't seen any real evidence to support the claim that stating a 'reduction in transmission can be expected after widescale vaccination' is a lie.

Stok wrote:

@Burleigh - me, research? Nahhhh. I just come here to poke holes in the extensive resuurch you and your pals do to try and build the case for the great big lie. Not at all in the same field, and not in anyway an expert. My comment was an assumption. No back tracking.

@flollo - absolutley wording is key, particularly when the premise of this thread is now 'THEY LIED!!!!' Nothing surprising there. Although your stated number of 0.00001% vs 0% is a bit ridiculous. The only evidence I've seen put forward here is MSM articles stating that Pfizer didn't run transmission tests (not sure how you'd actually do this in a clinical trial?). Haven't seen any real evidence to support the claim that stating a 'reduction in transmission can be expected after widescale vaccination' is a lie.

]
Stok doesn't look for real evidence Follo. He just makes assumption to comfort himself when the going gets tough.

Stok also assumed that telling internet strangers that he was educated would allow himself to rise above the plebs. Yet he proves that day after day he's on the same level as roadkill.

Well actually I can find lots of recent research saying that in a group of people who are infected, being vaccinated doesn’t even “reduce” transmission.

And it still doesn’t answer the question of what “science” they based the original recommendations on regarding reducing transmission, since, as even Prof Stok says, how could they even clinically test it…?

Were they making it up or not?

Sigh....the going is not tough Burleigh. It's good. Pandemic is essentially over. People have moved on.

You do have a good memory though, I'll give you that. I am on the same level to you or anyone else, I'm quite anti class/stature. But, and maybe my background helps this, I am able to recognise the limits of my abilities and knowledge in fields and areas I'm not in any way involved in. I'm getting deja vu - have we gone through this before several hundred times?

@Stok Hey mate I'm not actually judging them. Sometimes one needs to bullshit to get things done. Especially on this scale. I see it all the time in business. And I'm not immune to it myself. There are times when the timeline is so compressed that the only way to achieve the objective is to make quick decisions based on a set of assumptions. And then controlling those assumptions and ensuring that they eventuate. And it doesn't always work out. There are always issues and they can break anyone. The work they did here was amazing, so much effort and coordination. There's a lot to learn from the whole experience.

All in all, I reckon it was all based on assumptions and good PR. Those assumptions might or might not eventuate. And the real question is - are you comfortable with that or not?

Yep, good call Flollo.

Good PR is needed during times of emergency. Can't have weak, or confusing messaging. A side effect of that though is clearly people who disagree with the messaging see this as an attack on the truth or some more sinister motive.

I don't doubt the vaccines were incredibly safe, and I do believe the messaging around the clinical trials showing how well they reduced risk of serious illness. I understand that less people in hospital/out from work sick is a good thing for the community, so I'm ok with a strong, single phrase message such as 'get vaccinated to protect your community' being used as a call to arms.

gsco wrote:

Well actually I can find lots of recent research saying that in a group of people who are infected, being vaccinated doesn’t even “reduce” transmission.

And it still doesn’t answer the question of what “science” they based the original recommendations on regarding reducing transmission, since, as even Prof Stok says, how could they even clinically test it…?

Were they making it up or not?

Were they making it up? I doubt it.
Were they lying? Even more unlikely.
Who really is they anyway.....

Does the current, after the fact research into transmission invalidate the need for widespread vaccination during 2021? I don't think so.

burleigh wrote:

Stok wrote:

@Burleigh - me, research? Nahhhh. I just come here to poke holes in the extensive resuurch you and your pals do to try and build the case for the great big lie. Not at all in the same field, and not in anyway an expert. My comment was an assumption. No back tracking.

@flollo - absolutley wording is key, particularly when the premise of this thread is now 'THEY LIED!!!!' Nothing surprising there. Although your stated number of 0.00001% vs 0% is a bit ridiculous. The only evidence I've seen put forward here is MSM articles stating that Pfizer didn't run transmission tests (not sure how you'd actually do this in a clinical trial?). Haven't seen any real evidence to support the claim that stating a 'reduction in transmission can be expected after widescale vaccination' is a lie.

]
Stok doesn't look for real evidence Follo. He just makes assumption to comfort himself when the going gets tough.

Stok also assumed that telling internet strangers that he was educated would allow himself to rise above the plebs. Yet he proves that day after day he's on the same level as roadkill.

Thanks burleigh, considering stok owns you multiple times a day…happy to be on the same level.

Stok wrote:

Sigh....the going is not tough Burleigh. It's good. Pandemic is essentially over. People have moved on.

You do have a good memory though, I'll give you that. I am on the same level to you or anyone else, I'm quite anti class/stature. But, and maybe my background helps this, I am able to recognise the limits of my abilities and knowledge in fields and areas I'm not in any way involved in. I'm getting deja vu - have we gone through this before several hundred times?

You were definitely limited on your ability to understand a basic vaccine payout but yet you still gave your assumptions regardless.

Sounds like a common theme with you Stok.

Roadkill wrote:

burleigh wrote:

Stok wrote:

@Burleigh - me, research? Nahhhh. I just come here to poke holes in the extensive resuurch you and your pals do to try and build the case for the great big lie. Not at all in the same field, and not in anyway an expert. My comment was an assumption. No back tracking.

@flollo - absolutley wording is key, particularly when the premise of this thread is now 'THEY LIED!!!!' Nothing surprising there. Although your stated number of 0.00001% vs 0% is a bit ridiculous. The only evidence I've seen put forward here is MSM articles stating that Pfizer didn't run transmission tests (not sure how you'd actually do this in a clinical trial?). Haven't seen any real evidence to support the claim that stating a 'reduction in transmission can be expected after widescale vaccination' is a lie.

]
Stok doesn't look for real evidence Follo. He just makes assumption to comfort himself when the going gets tough.

Stok also assumed that telling internet strangers that he was educated would allow himself to rise above the plebs. Yet he proves that day after day he's on the same level as roadkill.

Thanks burleigh, considering stok owns you multiple times a day…happy to be on the same level.

Yep. Stok makes wrong assumptions about people receiving compensation for serious covid vaccine damage, that people with headaches is the reason it’s 80x over budget and you think that any unvaccinated person that gave your mum covid you wanted them locked up and charged with murder.

I’d say you’re on the same level.

@Roadkill I'm questioning whether Burleigh and co. have caught on to the irony that this forum topic was started by a serial doubter of the media, to discuss how little we can trust MSM, yet all that happens now is news.com articles are shared almost daily to highlight how the covid lies are now all being uncovered?

the covid-mega-marathon-thread is dead, but it seems its ghosts don't want to leave Swellnet just yet.

Stok wrote:

@Roadkill I'm questioning whether Burleigh and co. have caught on to the irony that this forum topic was started by a serial doubter of the media, to discuss how little we can trust MSM, yet all that happens now is news.com articles are shared almost daily to highlight how the covid lies are now all being uncovered?

the covid-mega-marathon-thread is dead, but it seems its ghosts don't want to leave Swellnet just yet.

burleigh did announce previously he was leaving SN as his work was done, re covid. Yet in this thread he just keeps popping up, again and again and again and again etc etc

he is prone to announcements..he did announce he was going to Mexico surfing to avoid vaccine passports. He did also announce he was going to Indo surfing as he knew how to avoid needing a vaccine passport. He did also announce he was going to visit customers in various international countries for the various (3, I think it was) international business he runs.

burleigh, just does not seem to be able to get away. He needs to get on with life rather than just talking about it.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/982852?src=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_ous_221...

udo wrote:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/982852?src=WNL_trdalrt_pos1_ous_221...

The together trial has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Not a fan of the joker but our government farked up big time . No doubt others will disagree https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/madness-to-ban-djokovic-but-let-wad... There could hardly be a more damning illustration of Australia’s double standards on COVID-19. On Friday night, Matthew Wade, wicketkeeper for the host nation at the T20 World Cup, is competing against England in Melbourne despite having tested positive for the virus.

In the meantime, Novak Djokovic, still scarred by his deportation at the whim of a government desperate to demonise the unvaccinated, languishes in confusion as to whether he will even be allowed into the country to chase his 10th Australian Open title. inconsistency of the rules is enough to make you scream.

We saw as much at this year’s Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, where, after 10 days of fervent mask-wearing and bubble-forming befitting Australia’s perception of England as a plague zone, the green-and-gold fielded Tahlia McGrath for the women’s T20 final regardless of the fact she was COVID-positive. Somehow, it perfectly encapsulated the hypocrisy that has defined much of Australia’s hard-line pandemic response. If there is a piece of dutiful COVID theatre to perform, its athletes are first in the queue. But if there is a match to be won, all protocols go out of the window. This year, Australia, once so fanatical about trying to eliminate COVID that it threatened its own citizens with five years’ imprisonment if they dared return home from India, has belatedly rejoined the rest of the world.

During the Ashes in December, it was still jumping at shadows, ruling captain Pat Cummins out of the Adelaide Test because he had stood close to somebody carrying the virus at a restaurant.

Today, such neurosis has subsided, to the point where Wade, far from needing to isolate, is at liberty to take on England in a crucial group game In one sense, the relaxations are to be welcomed. But in another, they expose the absurdity of what is still happening to Djokovic. The Serb remains scarred by his ordeal last winter, where he was incarcerated in a glorified Melbourne detention centre, then finally thrown out of Australia after the immigration minister ruled he could be a lightning rod for anti-vaxxers. It was, as the Australian Lawyers’ Alliance put it, an “Orwellian” decision that punished Djokovic more for the way he thought than the way he acted.

Nine months on, Djokovic cannot escape the cycle of retribution. While the cancellation of his visa threatens a three-year ban from Australia, the recent change of government has encouraged his team to hope for clemency. That was until Karen Andrews, the shadow home affairs minister, declared: “It would be a slap in the face for those people in Australia who did the right thing if Djokovic were allowed back into the country, simply because he is a high-ranking tennis player with many millions of dollars.” It is exactly the same wearisome populism that you heard so much last winter from Scott Morrison’s administration, in which Andrews served. Djokovic simply became a whipping boy for a government restless to show that its uncompromising border policies applied for everybody. But it has always been a fallacy, this idea that Australia makes no exceptions when it comes to COVID.

As today’s scenes at the Melbourne Cricket Ground will highlight, it is one rule for Wade and quite another for Djokovic, the nation’s convenient pariah.

Oliver Brown is the London Telegraph’s chief sports writer.

Supafreak wrote:

Not a fan of the joker but our government farked up big time . No doubt others will disagree https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/madness-to-ban-djokovic-but-let-wad... There could hardly be a more damning illustration of Australia’s double standards on COVID-19. On Friday night, Matthew Wade, wicketkeeper for the host nation at the T20 World Cup, is competing against England in Melbourne despite having tested positive for the virus.

In the meantime, Novak Djokovic, still scarred by his deportation at the whim of a government desperate to demonise the unvaccinated, languishes in confusion as to whether he will even be allowed into the country to chase his 10th Australian Open title. inconsistency of the rules is enough to make you scream.

We saw as much at this year’s Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, where, after 10 days of fervent mask-wearing and bubble-forming befitting Australia’s perception of England as a plague zone, the green-and-gold fielded Tahlia McGrath for the women’s T20 final regardless of the fact she was COVID-positive. Somehow, it perfectly encapsulated the hypocrisy that has defined much of Australia’s hard-line pandemic response. If there is a piece of dutiful COVID theatre to perform, its athletes are first in the queue. But if there is a match to be won, all protocols go out of the window. This year, Australia, once so fanatical about trying to eliminate COVID that it threatened its own citizens with five years’ imprisonment if they dared return home from India, has belatedly rejoined the rest of the world.

During the Ashes in December, it was still jumping at shadows, ruling captain Pat Cummins out of the Adelaide Test because he had stood close to somebody carrying the virus at a restaurant.

Today, such neurosis has subsided, to the point where Wade, far from needing to isolate, is at liberty to take on England in a crucial group game In one sense, the relaxations are to be welcomed. But in another, they expose the absurdity of what is still happening to Djokovic. The Serb remains scarred by his ordeal last winter, where he was incarcerated in a glorified Melbourne detention centre, then finally thrown out of Australia after the immigration minister ruled he could be a lightning rod for anti-vaxxers. It was, as the Australian Lawyers’ Alliance put it, an “Orwellian” decision that punished Djokovic more for the way he thought than the way he acted.

Nine months on, Djokovic cannot escape the cycle of retribution. While the cancellation of his visa threatens a three-year ban from Australia, the recent change of government has encouraged his team to hope for clemency. That was until Karen Andrews, the shadow home affairs minister, declared: “It would be a slap in the face for those people in Australia who did the right thing if Djokovic were allowed back into the country, simply because he is a high-ranking tennis player with many millions of dollars.” It is exactly the same wearisome populism that you heard so much last winter from Scott Morrison’s administration, in which Andrews served. Djokovic simply became a whipping boy for a government restless to show that its uncompromising border policies applied for everybody. But it has always been a fallacy, this idea that Australia makes no exceptions when it comes to COVID.

As today’s scenes at the Melbourne Cricket Ground will highlight, it is one rule for Wade and quite another for Djokovic, the nation’s convenient pariah.

Oliver Brown is the London Telegraph’s chief sports writer.

Agree....

Wade playing with covid now and Djokovic still banned is not total double standards.

If Djokovic had not tried to enter Australia last year, he would be free to enter Australia now. Unvaccinated visitors can now enter Australia.

The 3 year ban was not covid specific. It’s a standard piece of legislation that visas can be cancelled for 3 years if you provide false documents or false information to the Department of Home Affairs. As I recall, last year Djokovic claimed he had just had covid before he arrived. The evidence suggested he hadn’t.

Losing their religion.

Once politicians had thoroughly painted themselves into the "stay safe at all costs and follow (super cautious) expert advice corner" - to the cheers of many - it was very hard to escape.

By the middle of of 2021 the cumulative effect of daily press conferences discussing every nuance of the pandemic and the gradual morphing of advice into a form of ten commandments, and so the whole health and political system was now in a type of straightjacket of fears of the consequences of suggesting change with any risks associated with it. Stay safe is a safe message. But some risks must be taken if the greater public good is considered - beyond just covid. The media pack was ready to pounce on any shift, armed with the difficult to counter view (especially in a live press conference) , that someone somewhere might die (or has died) and it is their fault.

So as 2021 wore on, even as the lived experience of billions and research evidence indicated that extreme population control measures were no longer necessary (and some were never necessary), the system was stuck on the one main railway track. Detours and off ramps were blocked by expert opinion, the media pack and a now overly fearful population.

Djokovic's dramas occurred just after the big southerly change called Omicron swept through creating widespread recognition by the general population that extreme measures were redundant. But once you go full extreme it is hard to pivot quickly and to do so without stepping on the paint and leaving an embarrassing trail of footprints highlighting overreach in the past.

The lessons? Don't go extreme in the first place. Don't get religious zeal about unnecessarily high targets for vaccinations or for zero this or that. And... don't hold daily press conferences - it is not a good way to manage any crisis and does not lead to good, logical policy measures.

wally wrote:

Wade playing with covid now and Djokovic still banned is not total double standards.

If Djokovic had not tried to enter Australia last year, he would be free to enter Australia now. Unvaccinated visitors can now enter Australia.

The 3 year ban was not covid specific. It’s a standard piece of legislation that visas can be cancelled for 3 years if you provide false documents or false information to the Department of Home Affairs. As I recall, last year Djokovic claimed he had just had covid before he arrived. The evidence suggested he hadn’t.

@wally have you got a link for your evidence that suggested he hadn’t had covid before he arrived…..cheers https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/djokovic-had-covid-19-month-ago...

Questions were asked why he continued to attend public events in Serbia after he supposedly tested positive.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-12/retracing-djokovic-from-positive-...

Then you have the anomalous serial numbers of his covid tests.

https://www.bbc.com/news/59999541

wally wrote:

Questions were asked why he continued to attend public events in Serbia after he supposedly tested positive.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-12/retracing-djokovic-from-positive-...

Then you have the anomalous serial numbers of his covid tests.

https://www.bbc.com/news/59999541

Yes he carried on like a f-wit by going out after testing positive , however he’s not alone there as some politicians and celebrities did the same . So there’s no hard evidence that his tests were dodgy just speculation , is that right ? I was under the impression his visa was canceled because he was looked upon as anti - vax and the government didn’t want him influencing others . In my opinion the government farked up from the start by initially granting a visa . https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/tennis-reaction-australian-gove...

Yes, you are correct, according to the Minister.

frog wrote:

.The lessons? Don't go extreme in the first place. Don't get religious zeal about unnecessarily high targets for vaccinations or for zero this or that. And... don't hold daily press conferences - it is not a good way to manage any crisis and does not lead to good, logical policy measures.

Easy to say with hindsight frog.

Once the genie's out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

And with an actual unknown threat level, you're much better off being well within the safe zone, even at the expense of over reach.

It's also hard to re assess and pivot strategies, as there's a long line of commentators waiting to pounce on your decisions.

Use hindsight to do better next time rather than leaving the past unexamined is a positive.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Haven’t gotten around to reading the Shergold review yet eh Stock?

A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-...

“While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”

Explanation for invasion of 1,000's of VIPs is straight forward enough but none will touch it!

swellnet exclusive top secret VIP Codes.

April -May Boutique Interstate Cruises 150 pass / 1 stop / 1wk = 20 [+] Ship

June-Sept National Cruises 2,500 pass / 3 stops / 2wks = 150 [+] Ship

Oct-Nov International Cruises 4,000 pass / 4 stops / 3wks = 200-400 [+] Ship

US Cruise Boss tells Dom to dump the Lairy Colour Scheme...when it's all Blue we're coming thru!

28th October...Sunshiny Rainy State of Emergency!
Experts : "Qld Covid Emergency will end on Tuesday @ 5.4.3.2.1.0. (Why the rush & Why Tuesday?)

Tuesday : Quantum of Disease ~ 400 [+] pulls into Port of Bne [SOS]

Quantum of Yanks : "Where the (Cough!) Bloody Hell (Cough!) are ya?"

{ Qldurrz quivering in fear! } Shh! Just keep pretending we're Isolating!

2022 Oz cruise Itinerary Total [+] 2,000 pass / 25 cruises (Vax or Not Exclusive!)
https://www.swellnet.com/forums/politico/506540?page=108#comment-862743

I don’t think you can say lockdowns had little or no health effects. Covid restrictions were phased out from about December last year.

bluediamond wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

Not a fan of the joker but our government farked up big time . No doubt others will disagree https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/madness-to-ban-djokovic-but-let-wad... There could hardly be a more damning illustration of Australia’s double standards on COVID-19. On Friday night, Matthew Wade, wicketkeeper for the host nation at the T20 World Cup, is competing against England in Melbourne despite having tested positive for the virus.

In the meantime, Novak Djokovic, still scarred by his deportation at the whim of a government desperate to demonise the unvaccinated, languishes in confusion as to whether he will even be allowed into the country to chase his 10th Australian Open title. inconsistency of the rules is enough to make you scream.

We saw as much at this year’s Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, where, after 10 days of fervent mask-wearing and bubble-forming befitting Australia’s perception of England as a plague zone, the green-and-gold fielded Tahlia McGrath for the women’s T20 final regardless of the fact she was COVID-positive. Somehow, it perfectly encapsulated the hypocrisy that has defined much of Australia’s hard-line pandemic response. If there is a piece of dutiful COVID theatre to perform, its athletes are first in the queue. But if there is a match to be won, all protocols go out of the window. This year, Australia, once so fanatical about trying to eliminate COVID that it threatened its own citizens with five years’ imprisonment if they dared return home from India, has belatedly rejoined the rest of the world.

During the Ashes in December, it was still jumping at shadows, ruling captain Pat Cummins out of the Adelaide Test because he had stood close to somebody carrying the virus at a restaurant.

Today, such neurosis has subsided, to the point where Wade, far from needing to isolate, is at liberty to take on England in a crucial group game In one sense, the relaxations are to be welcomed. But in another, they expose the absurdity of what is still happening to Djokovic. The Serb remains scarred by his ordeal last winter, where he was incarcerated in a glorified Melbourne detention centre, then finally thrown out of Australia after the immigration minister ruled he could be a lightning rod for anti-vaxxers. It was, as the Australian Lawyers’ Alliance put it, an “Orwellian” decision that punished Djokovic more for the way he thought than the way he acted.

Nine months on, Djokovic cannot escape the cycle of retribution. While the cancellation of his visa threatens a three-year ban from Australia, the recent change of government has encouraged his team to hope for clemency. That was until Karen Andrews, the shadow home affairs minister, declared: “It would be a slap in the face for those people in Australia who did the right thing if Djokovic were allowed back into the country, simply because he is a high-ranking tennis player with many millions of dollars.” It is exactly the same wearisome populism that you heard so much last winter from Scott Morrison’s administration, in which Andrews served. Djokovic simply became a whipping boy for a government restless to show that its uncompromising border policies applied for everybody. But it has always been a fallacy, this idea that Australia makes no exceptions when it comes to COVID.

As today’s scenes at the Melbourne Cricket Ground will highlight, it is one rule for Wade and quite another for Djokovic, the nation’s convenient pariah.

Oliver Brown is the London Telegraph’s chief sports writer.

Never was a huge Joker fan but have done a backflip on that in the wake of all this. To stand in the face of public scrutiny on a global scale takes guts that most of us, myself especially could never comprehend. Not to mention how the history books will view his accomplishments. Surely an asterisk next to any tournaments won without him allowed in them.
Pretty sure Slats originally wasn't going to be let in because he might invoke the 'antivaxers'. Lets call a spade a spade. The poisonous jab was always known to be useless. What was of utmost importance was the rhetoric. That's what Djokavic was thrown up against, and still seemingly is.

“The poisonous jab was always known to be useless.” Wrong.

Lets call a dick a dick.

BD…another hindsight genius.

wally wrote:

I don’t think you can say lockdowns had little or no health effects. Covid restrictions were phased out from about December last year.

Lockdowns delayed the inevitable. The surge in cases was just pent up "demand" by the virus for new hosts.

Sweden said right at the start with their light approach that every country will have the virus run through their populations - the question was the timing - sooner or later.

Later, had some benefits but the cost was huge relative to the gains, given the very low fatality rates of deaths per infected person (seroprevalence) - rather than per reported case is considered.

"Highlights *Across 31 systematically identified national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the median infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years people and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years."

99.965% survived!!!!!!!!! Shutdowns were a massive overreach. Data was emerging on this way back in 2020 - pre vaccinations. It is not just a hindsight issue - it was more "blindsight" by many experts to certain types of important data right in the thick of it during 2020 and 2021. Plus of course the massive fear campaign that boosted TV ratings and certain vax makers.

Early on the measuring focused on deaths per case. Only the quite ill got counted - the rest were told to stay home. So the scary death rates (up to 3% in many models) driving policy were totally wrong for the 0-69 age group. A narrower focus of protect the elderly and vulnerable would have been more effective and easier to manage.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.10.11.22280963v1?utm_source...

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/closer-look-covid-mortality-rate

I often wonder if Covid had not got hold in the West in northern Italy which has a very high aged population which had a tough time with it and so scared the world with the mainly elderly death rate history would have been quite different.