Cartoonist Michael Leunig - Cancelled

 
  BaysideManny Junior Train Controller

I take a different viewpoint. The cartoon has made reference to one of the most momentous occasions in history.

That person in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square has sacrificed everything. A very brave man.

Anti-Vaxxers have sacrificed nothing. Except possibly their brains.


Mannie
I agree totally.

I think the Tiananmen Square happenings need similar respect to events like the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge's activities, 9/11 and other terrorism type incidents, etc - it will always be 'too soon' for humour to be directed at any of them, and even if by some means 'sufficient' time had passed, the 'struggles' of the anti vaccination crowds in developed economies are just not even close to the struggles of those involved in any of those other events.
It's not humour at all, nor is it intended to be. Like many of Leunig's drawings it is a piece of commentary on our society not an attempt at humour.

The issues of mandatory vaccinations are a big issue for many people and that is the point he is trying to get across. I know many people including some in my own family who would agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, people who got the jab purely because they would have lost work if they didn't not because they thought it was a good idea.

I do agree that using Tiananmen may not have been the best choice but I thought that the whole raison d'etre of the newspaper cartoonist was to go boldly where no mere journalist would dare to go.
BrentonGolding
The issues of mandatory vaccinations are a big issue for many people and that is the point he is trying to get across. I know many people including some in my own family who would agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, people who got the jab purely because they would have lost work if they didn't not because they thought it was a good idea.

I get that. Many including my wife were unsure, but eventually for the sake of the community they had the jab. My issue is not with those who are unsure. Mine are with the blatant anti-vaxxers and as far as they are concerned, because they are a risk to Public Health, they should be given no oxygen whatsoever.

Vaccine mandates are to protect those most vulnerable.


Mannie

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I agree totally.

I think the Tiananmen Square happenings need similar respect to events like the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge's activities, 9/11 and other terrorism type incidents, etc - it will always be 'too soon' for humour to be directed at any of them, and even if by some means 'sufficient' time had passed, the 'struggles' of the anti vaccination crowds in developed economies are just not even close to the struggles of those involved in any of those other events.
It's not humour at all, nor is it intended to be. Like many of Leunig's drawings it is a piece of commentary on our society not an attempt at humour.

The issues of mandatory vaccinations are a big issue for many people and that is the point he is trying to get across. I know many people including some in my own family who would agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, people who got the jab purely because they would have lost work if they didn't not because they thought it was a good idea.

I do agree that using Tiananmen may not have been the best choice but I thought that the whole raison d'etre of the newspaper cartoonist was to go boldly where no mere journalist would dare to go.
BrentonGolding
Agreed, it's just a comment on the use of force against the populace, the 'tank-man' reference is fair enough in my opinion.

It's a pretty surreal time we're living in and people need to keep perspective on it. If I'd come to you two years ago and told you about all the new-found powers that state governments would have over your lives including compelling you to take a medical treatment or lose your job most of you would never have believed me. Yet here we are.

Nothing whatsoever to do with anit-vax/pro-vax and everything to do with the control that governments currently exert over the people that they're supposed to be serving.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
everything to do with the control that governments currently exert over the people that they're supposed to be serving.
don_dunstan
Part of any government's roles as public servants is public health and safety, hence they have a police force, emergency services including ambulance, public health systems including hospitals. They enact legislation to keep those that they serve safe. This can and must be flexible enough to counter or mitigate any emergent danger to public health and safety.
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
I agree totally.

I think the Tiananmen Square happenings need similar respect to events like the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge's activities, 9/11 and other terrorism type incidents, etc - it will always be 'too soon' for humour to be directed at any of them, and even if by some means 'sufficient' time had passed, the 'struggles' of the anti vaccination crowds in developed economies are just not even close to the struggles of those involved in any of those other events.
It's not humour at all, nor is it intended to be. Like many of Leunig's drawings it is a piece of commentary on our society not an attempt at humour.

The issues of mandatory vaccinations are a big issue for many people and that is the point he is trying to get across. I know many people including some in my own family who would agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment, people who got the jab purely because they would have lost work if they didn't not because they thought it was a good idea.

I do agree that using Tiananmen may not have been the best choice but I thought that the whole raison d'etre of the newspaper cartoonist was to go boldly where no mere journalist would dare to go.
Agreed, it's just a comment on the use of force against the populace, the 'tank-man' reference is fair enough in my opinion.

It's a pretty surreal time we're living in and people need to keep perspective on it. If I'd come to you two years ago and told you about all the new-found powers that state governments would have over your lives including compelling you to take a medical treatment or lose your job most of you would never have believed me. Yet here we are.

Nothing whatsoever to do with anit-vax/pro-vax and everything to do with the control that governments currently exert over the people that they're supposed to be serving.
don_dunstan
Yes they are compelling people to get the jab, and??, I see no problem with it really, if you work on the frontline, it's very important that you get the vaccine.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I've really got no intention of participating in the stink-fest that is the COVID19 thread again because people have made up their minds about what the right strategy is and they can't assimilate any new information about it. However the fact is that having the 'jab' is actually making people over 30 more infectious for some reason - observe this Public Health England chart published a few weeks ago:


Don't ask me why but the infection rate for people over thirty is in many cases more than double for fully vaccinated people than it is for unvaccinated people but have a look at the age group 40-49 - 1,289 positive COVID19 cases per 100,000 vs. 690 per 100,000.

I'm really resistant to discuss this any further other than to say it's just not as straightforward as 'vaccines make you less infectious'. Because they obviously don't. And one other thing on the vaccines - the virus is beating them - a study from Journal of Nature: The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-induced antibodies with high efficiency.

For those who don't know, the variant being referred to in the research article is called A.30:

We investigated host cell entry and antibody-mediated neutralization of the variant A.30 (also termed A.VOI.V2), which was detected in several patients in Angola and Sweden in spring 2021 and likely originated in Tanzania [2].

Long story short, the authors conclude that this variant "efficiently evades neutralization by antibodies elicited by" the AZ and Pfizer vaccines:

"As a consequence, the potential spread of the A.30 variant warrants close monitoring and rapid instalment of countermeasures."

When they mean 'countermeasures' they actually mean to say 'more lock-downs until there's a new vaccine developed that can counter the rapid evolution of the virus. Or that's how our governments are going to interpret it anyway. So get ready for 'needles forever' - updates, boosters, you name it. Everyone is going to need to keep having updated vaccines at regular intervals probably for years to come - which was always my fear about these vaccines right from the very start. Once you start taking them you'll never be able to stop.

Anyway as I said, I really don't want to dive into this stuff again - it's just too toxic and people go nuts even worse than about climate change.
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
I've really got no intention of participating in the stink-fest that is the COVID19 thread again because people have made up their minds about what the right strategy is and they can't assimilate any new information about it. However the fact is that having the 'jab' is actually making people over 30 more infectious for some reason - observe this Public Health England chart published a few weeks ago:


Don't ask me why but the infection rate for people over thirty is in many cases more than double for fully vaccinated people than it is for unvaccinated people but have a look at the age group 40-49 - 1,289 positive COVID19 cases per 100,000 vs. 690 per 100,000.

I'm really resistant to discuss this any further other than to say it's just not as straightforward as 'vaccines make you less infectious'. Because they obviously don't. And one other thing on the vaccines - the virus is beating them - a study from Journal of Nature: The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-induced antibodies with high efficiency.

For those who don't know, the variant being referred to in the research article is called A.30:

We investigated host cell entry and antibody-mediated neutralization of the variant A.30 (also termed A.VOI.V2), which was detected in several patients in Angola and Sweden in spring 2021 and likely originated in Tanzania [2].

Long story short, the authors conclude that this variant "efficiently evades neutralization by antibodies elicited by" the AZ and Pfizer vaccines:

"As a consequence, the potential spread of the A.30 variant warrants close monitoring and rapid instalment of countermeasures."

When they mean 'countermeasures' they actually mean to say 'more lock-downs until there's a new vaccine developed that can counter the rapid evolution of the virus. Or that's how our governments are going to interpret it anyway. So get ready for 'needles forever' - updates, boosters, you name it. Everyone is going to need to keep having updated vaccines at regular intervals probably for years to come - which was always my fear about these vaccines right from the very start. Once you start taking them you'll never be able to stop.

Anyway as I said, I really don't want to dive into this stuff again - it's just too toxic and people go nuts even worse than about climate change.
don_dunstan
Of course you don't, your butt has been well and truly kicked in that thread, why would you want more embarrassment.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Of course you don't, your butt has been well and truly kicked in that thread, why would you want more embarrassment.
lsrailfan
"Shouted down by hysterics" would have been my choice of words.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
Want to complain about cancelled culture?

Go back to 1788.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA

Don't ask me why but the infection rate for people over thirty is in many cases more than double for fully vaccinated people than it is for unvaccinated people but have a look at the age group 40-49 - 1,289 positive COVID19 cases per 100,000 vs. 690 per 100,000.
don_dunstan
How fncking bad at mathematics are you? Serious question!

Infection rate for people over thirty is in many cases more than double for fully vaccinated people

more than double ...

In case you missed it

more ...

than ...

double ...


and

in many cases

I'll spare myself the waste of typing it again.

so 1281.8 is more than double 690.2?

839.5 is more than double 502.5?

563.1 is more than double 332.9?

428.9 is more than double 281.4?

354.4 is more than double 319.5?

in many of those cases the answer is 'yes'?

Really?

Really, really?

You got one bit right, I am not going to ask you why ... because in exactly no cases is the vaccinated rate of infection more than double the unvaccinated rate.

I have never really understood what shock was before, but I am in it now.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
How fncking bad at mathematics are you? Serious question!

Infection rate for people over thirty is in many cases more than double for fully vaccinated people

more than double ...

In case you missed it

more ...

than ...

double ...


and

in many cases

I'll spare myself the waste of typing it again.

so 1281.8 is more than double 690.2?

839.5 is more than double 502.5?

563.1 is more than double 332.9?

428.9 is more than double 281.4?

354.4 is more than double 319.5?

in many of those cases the answer is 'yes'?

Really?

Really, really?

You got one bit right, I am not going to ask you why ... because in exactly no cases is the vaccinated rate of infection more than double the unvaccinated rate.

I have never really understood what shock was before, but I am in it now.
Aaron
Gimme a break, I've had a really long day at a physically arduous job that I'm sure you have no conception of. Your song and dance is reminiscent of all the other hysterical mimics here ...

The fact is that you are much more likely to contract COVID19 in the UK if you've been vaccinated in the over 30's age group. Full-stop.

And no comment at all about the fact that COVID is finding a way around the vaccines? I thought you'd be all over that like a blow-fly on sh*t.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I've really got no intention of participating in the stink-fest that is the COVID19 thread again
don_dunstan
And since it seems you won't read it there, I'll post it here.

Remember when you were banging on about the 800% suicide increase in under 18 year old Victorian females on last year?

There have been no recorded suicides in that age group in the last month, but in corresponding month last year there were, the rate is now 'only' 200% increased. However, October, November and December also recorded deaths to suicide in that demographic last year, since Victoria will more or less be out of lock down in these months this year it is not inconceivable that Victoria may well record a nett decrease in suicides in that one demographic by the end of the year. What will you say then? Recall, that in the Covid thread I went to some length to explain this to you.

Statistics like suicide numbers have a horrible way of not changing much year on year (because the non horrible thing would be for them to drastically reduce - sadly, this is not a general trend), to take a single data point on what is clearly a moving target statistic and hang your hat on it as a fact is frankly dangerous.

You're thankfully not the first to learn this, it is noted that the 'story' you were working from has dropped of the media radar - maybe they learned something about statistics too.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
How fncking bad at mathematics are you? Serious question!

Infection rate for people over thirty is in many cases more than double for fully vaccinated people

more than double ...

In case you missed it

more ...

than ...

double ...


and

in many cases

I'll spare myself the waste of typing it again.

so 1281.8 is more than double 690.2?

839.5 is more than double 502.5?

563.1 is more than double 332.9?

428.9 is more than double 281.4?

354.4 is more than double 319.5?

in many of those cases the answer is 'yes'?

Really?

Really, really?

You got one bit right, I am not going to ask you why ... because in exactly no cases is the vaccinated rate of infection more than double the unvaccinated rate.

I have never really understood what shock was before, but I am in it now.
Gimme a break, I've had a really long day at a physically arduous job that I'm sure you have no conception of. Your song and dance is reminiscent of all the other hysterical mimics here ...

The fact is that you are much more likely to contract COVID19 in the UK if you've been vaccinated in the over 30's age group. Full-stop.

And no comment at all about the fact that COVID is finding a way around the vaccines? I thought you'd be all over that like a blow-fly on sh*t.
don_dunstan
And I have had a long day of arduous mental activity; yet I can still recall my two times tables.

You didn't get one thing wrong, you got EVERYTHING WRONG.

That Covid is 'finding a way around the vaccines' is of no surprise to me, this is why I equate you to Mytrone, I have been mentioning this repeatedly - both of you don't get it. IT'S EXPECTED! That's why it's important to get as many vaccinated as possible, because if you took the numbers of passed on infections from vaccinated vs unvaccinated you'd find that *shock* it's non zero for both. The vaccinated cohort is significantly closer to zero though.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
How is it 'closer to zero'? For every cohort over 30 it's higher for vaccinated people.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I've really got no intention of participating in the stink-fest that is the COVID19 thread again
And since it seems you won't read it there, I'll post it here.

Remember when you were banging on about the 800% increase in under 18 year old Victorian females on last year?

There have been no recorded suicides in that age group in the last month, but in corresponding month last year there were, the rate is now 'only' 200% increased. However, October, November and December also recorded deaths to suicide in that demographic last year, since Victoria will more or less be out of lock down in these months this year it is not inconceivable that Victoria may well record a nett decrease in suicides in that one demographic by the end of the year. What will you say then? Recall, that in the Covid thread I went to some length to explain this to you.

Statistics like suicide numbers have a horrible way of not changing much year on year (because the non horrible thing would be for them to drastically reduce - sadly, this is not a general trend), to take a single data point on what is clearly a moving target statistic and hang your hat on it as a fact is frankly dangerous.

You're thankfully not the first to learn this, it is noted that the 'story' you were working from has dropped of the media radar - maybe they learned something about statistics too.
Aaron
800% increase in WHAT?

I'm also trained in the use of statistics if you haven't picked that up by now and the fact is that there was an unusual spike at that particular time that they were trying to say was nothing whatsoever to do with the VIC lockdown when clearly it was.

There were people who died because of the immense psychological impact of lockdowns and their deaths are collateral damage according to those in charge. All to save the lives of people in nursing homes, many of who wanted to die rather than go on living that way or who have died since then anyway.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
And I have had a long day of arduous mental activity; yet I can still recall my two times tables.
Aaron
Yeah because you're a frigging genius. I get it.
That Covid is 'finding a way around the vaccines' is of no surprise to me, this is why I equate you to Mytrone, I have been mentioning this repeatedly - both of you don't get it. IT'S EXPECTED!
Aaron
Don't tell me that - tell the millions of Australians who thought that THE JAB was the exact same thing as having hepatitis or tetanus and that they've have it once and never, ever have to have it again. They were lied to multiple times - not only do they have to continue to have 'booster' shots every 3-6 months but the very vaccines that they've been injected with might be rendered completely ineffective by the evolution of the virus and the drug companies will have to start all over again with new ones that have the correct spike protein in them.

Isn't it great? Just like all the other consumer crap in our lives we have to throw it out and get brand new ones.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
And I have had a long day of arduous mental activity; yet I can still recall my two times tables.
Yeah because you're a frigging genius. I get it.
don_dunstan
Knowing my two times tables qualifies me for genius? That's a slightly lower hurdle than the MENSA membership test, but okay, I'll take it.


That Covid is 'finding a way around the vaccines' is of no surprise to me, this is why I equate you to Mytrone, I have been mentioning this repeatedly - both of you don't get it. IT'S EXPECTED!
Don't tell me that - tell the millions of Australians who thought that THE JAB was the exact same thing as having hepatitis or tetanus and that they've have it once and never, ever have to have it again. They were lied to multiple times - not only do they have to continue to have 'booster' shots every 3-6 months but the very vaccines that they've been injected with might be rendered completely ineffective by the evolution of the virus and the drug companies will have to start all over again with new ones that have the correct spike protein in them.

Isn't it great? Just like all the other consumer crap in our lives we have to throw it out and get brand new ones.
don_dunstan
That's a fault in the understanding of them, Mytrone and yourself, I am not aware of ANY Covid vaccine that has ever claimed to be a one time (even with second dose) silver bullet.

Evolved viruses, will be by definition, new viruses, it is more likely than not that new vaccines will be required, NO vaccine manufacturer has ever claimed their vaccine will cover you for a virus that has evolved.

What I think you mean to say is anti genetic shifting so far we have a one type vaccine from both Pfizer and Moderna that seems to cover all currently known strains (anti genetic shifting) with decent protection, even AZ at al seem to be reasonably decent at protecting from such. You only need the vaccine to keep you out of hospital, and provide with less transmission, if boosters need to be had, so be it.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I've really got no intention of participating in the stink-fest that is the COVID19 thread again
And since it seems you won't read it there, I'll post it here.

Remember when you were banging on about the 800% increase in under 18 year old Victorian females on last year?

There have been no recorded suicides in that age group in the last month, but in corresponding month last year there were, the rate is now 'only' 200% increased. However, October, November and December also recorded deaths to suicide in that demographic last year, since Victoria will more or less be out of lock down in these months this year it is not inconceivable that Victoria may well record a nett decrease in suicides in that one demographic by the end of the year. What will you say then? Recall, that in the Covid thread I went to some length to explain this to you.

Statistics like suicide numbers have a horrible way of not changing much year on year (because the non horrible thing would be for them to drastically reduce - sadly, this is not a general trend), to take a single data point on what is clearly a moving target statistic and hang your hat on it as a fact is frankly dangerous.

You're thankfully not the first to learn this, it is noted that the 'story' you were working from has dropped of the media radar - maybe they learned something about statistics too.
800% increase in WHAT?
don_dunstan
Sorry, left a word out, but fixed, and it was likely apparent from the next paragraph anyway.

I'm also trained in the use of statistics if you haven't picked that up by now
don_dunstan
I had not picked that up, because, my guess is, you're so bad at interpreting statistics that I guess I didn't think you could have professionally studied in the field.

the fact is that there was an unusual spike at that particular time that they were trying to say was nothing whatsoever to do with the VIC lockdown when clearly it was.
don_dunstan
Oh, so you were picking up what I was putting down!

No, see there you go, so bad at interpreting statistics that I cannot believe you've studied in the field, and after I told you not to hang your hat on one data point again...

In case you missed it, Victoria was in lockdown for almost the entire of last year, yet suicides were not unusually high to that point last year, quite the opposite, they were slightly low. The statistic in your chosen month was oddly high, with the subsequent month being low again (Victoria more or less still in lockdown) whilst subsequent months in 2020 increased to 'normal' levels again. That's exactly what I said would likely happen, suicide rates have an unfortunate habit of not changing much year on year, which is why it is especially odd to pick a single point to fail your dissertation on.

So to recap, your statistically educated point of view was that one month in one year of lockdown had an increased count over that same month, the year previous also in lockdown.

So you think that subsequent months this year had the count go down because? (Lockdown is still happening in Victoria)

And you think that subsequent months last year had the count go up because? (Remember, they were previously down under lockdown).

The answer is that all you were doing was cherry picking one data point, whilst failing to acknowledge (and now observe) that in statistics anomalies like these almost always even out.

There were people who died because of the immense psychological impact of lockdowns and their deaths are collateral damage according to those in charge.
don_dunstan
Then why year on year, for all of last year, (and seemingly likely for this year too) has there not been a measurable increase in suicide rate? I remind you that you're choosing to base your statements on a single gender of a single demographic, in a single month, when the annual rate across your chosen cohort (indeed across all Victorians) has effectively not changed.

All to save the lives of people in nursing homes, many of who wanted to die rather than go on living that way or who have died since then anyway.
don_dunstan
I would not make a habit of trying to speak for the dead. You go too far though, the Victorian lockdowns were all to save lives, and you might think differently if you were one of the people killed or had close family killed by a preventable virus transmission.

The efficacy of these lockdowns can be debated, but you only need to look at Europe (Italy I am looking at you), the UK and US to see that they likely did save lives, not as many as they should have, but hey, nothing is perfect.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
How is it 'closer to zero'? For every cohort over 30 it's higher for vaccinated people.
don_dunstan
Your table shows numbers for rates of infection.

My comment is about a person's ability to pass the infection to another person...

They're not the same thing.

On reflection, I don't think that table is very good, despite the fact that it makes the appearance of coming from the NHS - maybe they don't know how to structure data clearly either.

It's been troubling me how those numbers can be so skewed, and I have worked it out.

They are expressing infection counts per 100k total population, I thought those numbers were infection counts per 100k vaccinated and per 100k unvaccintaed - so I think did you, or maybe from other information surrounding that table you knew it was total population and hoped others (including me) wouldn't realise.

So, let's take an adjustment of those numbers on something closer to a level playing field. The UK two dose vaccination rate is somewhere about 2/3, but I can use your chosen statistic and demographic to eliminate any point of bias, or 'cherry picking' of data from myself.

You want to talk about the 1281.1 vs 690.1 numbers? The rate of vaccination in the UK for the 40-49 demographic is about 80%.

Therefore: 1281.8/100k population (x10/8) becomes 1602/100k vaccinated people.
And 690.2/100k population (x10/2) becomes 3451/100k unvaccinated people.

You're right!! This is more than double, just not the way you thought it would be...

Further, if you tally all of the demographics you find that the chance of infection is 4156.1/100k for vaccinated people and 5878.7/100k for unvaccinated, that's about an extra 40% chance of getting the virus for unvaccinated people.
  BaysideManny Junior Train Controller

And I have had a long day of arduous mental activity; yet I can still recall my two times tables.
Yeah because you're a frigging genius. I get it.
Knowing my two times tables qualifies me for genius? That's a slightly lower hurdle than the MENSA membership test, but okay, I'll take it.


That Covid is 'finding a way around the vaccines' is of no surprise to me, this is why I equate you to Mytrone, I have been mentioning this repeatedly - both of you don't get it. IT'S EXPECTED!
Don't tell me that - tell the millions of Australians who thought that THE JAB was the exact same thing as having hepatitis or tetanus and that they've have it once and never, ever have to have it again. They were lied to multiple times - not only do they have to continue to have 'booster' shots every 3-6 months but the very vaccines that they've been injected with might be rendered completely ineffective by the evolution of the virus and the drug companies will have to start all over again with new ones that have the correct spike protein in them.

Isn't it great? Just like all the other consumer crap in our lives we have to throw it out and get brand new ones.That's a fault in the understanding of them, Mytrone and yourself, I am not aware of ANY Covid vaccine that has ever claimed to be a one time (even with second dose) silver bullet.

Evolved viruses, will be by definition, new viruses, it is more likely than not that new vaccines will be required, NO vaccine manufacturer has ever claimed their vaccine will cover you for a virus that has evolved.

What I think you mean to say is anti genetic shifting so far we have a one type vaccine from both Pfizer and Moderna that seems to cover all currently known strains (anti genetic shifting) with decent protection, even AZ at al seem to be reasonably decent at protecting from such. You only need the vaccine to keep you out of hospital, and provide with less transmission, if boosters need to be had, so be it.
Aaron
Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated.


Mannie
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
I'm also trained in the use of statistics if you haven't picked that up by now
don_dunstan
Could have fooled us. I'm glad we had Aaron to get it right.
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
I can't believe that Don Dunstan would say that many people in aged care would rather die than live like that (in a nursing home setting), I am an aged care volunteer, and yes while it may be true that there would be a few that would rather die than be in an aged care home, the vast majority that are there actually enjoy it, seeing their friends everyday, doing the many activities which are on offer, going on excursions/days out, there are many that enjoy doing that type of stuff, that comment is so out of touch it's not funny!
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I can't believe that Don Dunstan would say that many people in aged care would rather die than live like that (in a nursing home setting), I am an aged care volunteer, and yes while it may be true that there would be a few that would rather die than be in an aged care home, the vast majority that are there actually enjoy it, seeing their friends everyday, doing the many activities which are on offer, going on excursions/days out, there are many that enjoy doing that type of stuff, that comment is so out of touch it's not funny!
lsrailfan
So when you're bed-ridden, incontinent and dependent on pain killers to get through every day I'll come round and take you for a jolly jaunt to the beach and you'll totally forget about all your woes and want to live.

Got it.
Could have fooled us. I'm glad we had Aaron to get it right.
Aaron
So now you agree with Aaron? Seem to recall you once him he had no right to have the Adelaide University shield on his avatar because he was so wrong about everything.

Enemy of my enemy kinda thing I guess.
Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. Mannie
Mannie
But you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.

Facile.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
That's a fault in the understanding of them, Mytrone and yourself, I am not aware of ANY Covid vaccine that has ever claimed to be a one time (even with second dose) silver bullet.

Evolved viruses, will be by definition, new viruses, it is more likely than not that new vaccines will be required, NO vaccine manufacturer has ever claimed their vaccine will cover you for a virus that has evolved.

What I think you mean to say is anti genetic shifting so far we have a one type vaccine from both Pfizer and Moderna that seems to cover all currently known strains (anti genetic shifting) with decent protection, even AZ at al seem to be reasonably decent at protecting from such. You only need the vaccine to keep you out of hospital, and provide with less transmission, if boosters need to be had, so be it.
Aaron
At what point when these vaccines were being rolled out was the doses SUBSEQUENT to the second dose ever mentioned? Up until very recently it wasn't even mentioned to the Aussie public although it's certainly been in train in Israel where they're now up to their 4th 'booster' and it hasn't even been a year yet.

Dan Andrews only acknowledged boosters were necessary last weekend when he said people with a vaccine passport had a responsibility to keep it 'current'. Our own state government only mentioned it this week when they said they'd start texting people who were required to take their 'booster'.

I don't recall it ever being mentioned that it was an indefinite round of injections six months ago - but by all means if you can find early references to that please post them here.

And the vaccines do not provide less transmission - the Public Health England chart clearly shows that - and if you need a local example look no further than this Sydney gym, only open to double-vaccinated people - which has suddenly turned into a 'super spreader' potentially spreading it to hundreds.

Wow wee, vaccines worked really well there didn't they.
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
I can't believe that Don Dunstan would say that many people in aged care would rather die than live like that (in a nursing home setting), I am an aged care volunteer, and yes while it may be true that there would be a few that would rather die than be in an aged care home, the vast majority that are there actually enjoy it, seeing their friends everyday, doing the many activities which are on offer, going on excursions/days out, there are many that enjoy doing that type of stuff, that comment is so out of touch it's not funny!
So when you're bed-ridden, incontinent and dependent on pain killers to get through every day I'll come round and take you for a jolly jaunt to the beach and you'll totally forget about all your woes and want to live.

Got it.
Could have fooled us. I'm glad we had Aaron to get it right.
So now you agree with Aaron? Seem to recall you once him he had no right to have the Adelaide University shield on his avatar because he was so wrong about everything.

Enemy of my enemy kinda thing I guess.
Exactly. Again that is Don up to his old tricks again. Arguing on a point that was never made. It was said over and over that the vaccines will not stop you from acquiring the virus but rather mitigate its effects. Hospitalizations are much lower for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. Mannie
But you catch it at ALMOST twice the rate of unvaccinated people, Manny. Just like Joe Biden meeting with Kim you interpret the situation differently depending on who and how. Donald Trump = evil legitimisation of the North Korean regime, Biden = diplomacy.

Facile.
don_dunstan
Again out of touch!, again I have said THERE ARE MANY that are there that enjoy the activities that are on offer, there would be a FEW that fit your description yes, but on the whole no! the trouble is you make blanket statements!
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Again out of touch!, again I have said THERE ARE MANY that are there that enjoy the activities that are on offer, there would be a FEW that fit your description yes, but on the whole no! the trouble is you make blanket statements!
lsrailfan
Again, when you're at the end of your life and in chronic pain and in high needs care I will remember this statement that all you need is nice trip to the beach to reinvigorate your zest for life.

You've made yourself crystal clear - there's no need to qualify it any more.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: james.au

Display from: