Coronavirus (COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2) outbreak discussion

[pozindustrial]

I'm not saying Dr Fauci was responsible for covid. Or that ' gain of function' is evil. It can be very dangerous, but it can also bring advances in the science.

But it can be very dangerous.

Exactly. Some good info being dug up. Pieces of a puzzle. World shutdown (to a lesser and greater extent) is not to be sneezed at, excuse the pun, so the more we see of the picture the better we can understand the context of what we are being told (or not told).

Yesterday Scomo said his decisions were taken from ATAGI recommendations. If you look it up you can see the large group of professionals on the board. There is also a link to their 'disclosures of interest' and most of those are 'sponsored travel' and presenting at conferences.

The bigger the money behind them, the bigger and more prestigious the conference, the better the 'travel' and 'perks' and it does no harm to your peer status. Drug companies sponsor conferences so it must be difficult not to be influenced by them when those keynote speakers eventually guide the Australian government and WHO.

Perhaps I am wrong or paranoid. Perhaps my belief in preventative and curative health is too old-fashioned compared to the 'maintenance' style of modern health dished out today where only symptoms are treated with a drug for life or a new chemical injection for every disease and virus that passes through every year for life. It certainly gives doctors a steady income, pharmacists a steady income, drug companies a steady income, but if they cure you of something they all lose because you do not come back. That is a lot of losses to protect. Another piece of the puzzle.

 

[wayneL]

I'm not saying Dr Fauci was responsible for covid. Or that ' gain of function' is evil. It can be very dangerous, but it can also bring advances in the science.

But it can be very dangerous.

I think Rand's point was not so much about gain of function or even covid, but rather that he lied to congress about funding of it.

 

[bellenuit]

‘Now is not the time to risk it all’: Singapore returns to lockdown​

‘Now is not the time to risk it all’: Singapore returns to lockdown

Three weeks after it outlined its much-publicised road map for living with COVID-19, the city-state is on the defensive again.

www.smh.com.au

 

[rederob]

It depends if you redefine what 'gain of function' is I suppose. There's a lot of stuff out there.

If a virus is not enhanced in some way what has it "gained"?
The semantic argument seems to pivot on any change to a virus's structure being equivalent to a "gain" as it has added a difference!
Rand Paul chose his words poorly, although Fauci at first blush sounds to the lay person as though he has slipped up in answering about transmissibility to humans. The virus is either transmissible or it is not. Transmissibility is not being increased as Rand Paul asks, instead it's being proven. An enhancement would occur if the virus became more contagious or lethal.
The big problem with this kind of research is if a lab error occurs and the changed virus actually infects a human.
What Fauci is certain about is that from all known research at WIV, no viruses close to SARS-CoV-2 existed in any bats.

 

[pozindustrial]

If you never thought that Google had a vested interest in vaccines and would censor CoVid debate...

....In the video above, German attorney and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1),2,3 Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Whitney Webb, an independent investigative reporter, about who’s really behind YouTube’s censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

He recounts how a medical doctor who after a great deal of trouble managed to get a risk-benefit analysis of mask mandates published in the Journal of Pediatrics. He created a short video about his findings, and within minutes of posting it to YouTube, the video was removed. What is actually going on here? Who is behind the censoring of peer-reviewed science? Who is trying to influence what?

Google Is Invested in the COVID ‘Vaccine’​

As noted by Webb, YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” While the AstraZeneca jab has been framed as a not-for-profit product, this is far from true. The developers of this gene modification tool are Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert with the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research.

While the Jenner Institute is the official developer of the shot, the actual patents and royalty rights for the AstraZeneca shot are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which was founded by Hill and Gilbert. Vaccitech’s investors include:5,6,7,8

• Google Ventures
• The Welcome Trust, which has longstanding links to the eugenics movement
• The British government
• BRAAVOS, a capital investment company set up by a Deutsche Bank executive. BRAAVO’s investment is partially hidden, as BRAAVO is the main shareholder of Oxford Science Innovation, which in turn is invested in Vaccitech
• Chinese interests, including a Chinese bank branch and a drug company called Fosun Pharma

All of these investors stand to profit from this “vaccine” at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 shot will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.

Sure, AstraZeneca promised it would not make any profit from this COVID-19 vaccine, but there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself can decide when that is.

Google Is Protecting Its Financial Stakes​

Since Google has a direct financial interest in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 “vaccine,” is it any wonder that its subsidiaries, like YouTube, are censoring information that threatens the future profitability of these products? I would think not.

More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.....

The above was clipped from this article

Could Medical Researchers Be the Next Target of Censorship?

In this video, a German attorney interviews an independent investigative reporter about the censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

articles.mercola.com

 

[wayneL]

If you never thought that Google had a vested interest in vaccines and would censor CoVid debate...

....In the video above, German attorney and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1),2,3 Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Whitney Webb, an independent investigative reporter, about who’s really behind YouTube’s censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

He recounts how a medical doctor who after a great deal of trouble managed to get a risk-benefit analysis of mask mandates published in the Journal of Pediatrics. He created a short video about his findings, and within minutes of posting it to YouTube, the video was removed. What is actually going on here? Who is behind the censoring of peer-reviewed science? Who is trying to influence what?

Google Is Invested in the COVID ‘Vaccine’​

As noted by Webb, YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” While the AstraZeneca jab has been framed as a not-for-profit product, this is far from true. The developers of this gene modification tool are Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert with the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research.

While the Jenner Institute is the official developer of the shot, the actual patents and royalty rights for the AstraZeneca shot are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which was founded by Hill and Gilbert. Vaccitech’s investors include:5,6,7,8

• Google Ventures
• The Welcome Trust, which has longstanding links to the eugenics movement
• The British government
• BRAAVOS, a capital investment company set up by a Deutsche Bank executive. BRAAVO’s investment is partially hidden, as BRAAVO is the main shareholder of Oxford Science Innovation, which in turn is invested in Vaccitech
• Chinese interests, including a Chinese bank branch and a drug company called Fosun Pharma

All of these investors stand to profit from this “vaccine” at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 shot will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.

Sure, AstraZeneca promised it would not make any profit from this COVID-19 vaccine, but there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself can decide when that is.

Google Is Protecting Its Financial Stakes​

Since Google has a direct financial interest in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 “vaccine,” is it any wonder that its subsidiaries, like YouTube, are censoring information that threatens the future profitability of these products? I would think not.

More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.....

The above was clipped from this article

Could Medical Researchers Be the Next Target of Censorship?

In this video, a German attorney interviews an independent investigative reporter about the censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

articles.mercola.com

Yep

If you don't think there are mercantile motivations in this whole vaccine thing, you're a bloody idiot. (With apologies to the anti-drink driving campaign)

 

[rederob]

Yep

If you don't think there are mercantile motivations in this whole vaccine thing, you're a bloody idiot. (With apologies to the anti-drink driving campaign)

Without profit these companies do not invest in further research.
Isn't the better question about if they are profiteering?

 

[moXJO]

If a virus is not enhanced in some way what has it "gained"?
The semantic argument seems to pivot on any change to a virus's structure being equivalent to a "gain" as it has added a difference!
Rand Paul chose his words poorly, although Fauci at first blush sounds to the lay person as though he has slipped up in answering about transmissibility to humans. The virus is either transmissible or it is not. Transmissibility is not being increased as Rand Paul asks, instead it's being proven. An enhancement would occur if the virus became more contagious or lethal.
The big problem with this kind of research is if a lab error occurs and the changed virus actually infects a human.
What Fauci is certain about is that from all known research at WIV, no viruses close to SARS-CoV-2 existed in any bats.

Rand never said the backbone used in the research Shi published was used for covid. Fauci blustered a bs point to try seem correct and detract from the actual issue. Rand’s point was Fauci funded GoF research that added a spike protein to a BatCoV in Wuhan.

 

[rederob]

Rand’s point was Fauci funded GoF research that added a spike protein to a BatCoV in Wuhan.

Correct in Rand's point, but under the rules/definitions set out by the US specifically for gain of function research, what was carried out by Shi in Wuhan was transfer and not gain.
Rand not only didn't understand the "rules", his question lacked the technical phrasing necessary to elicit a less confrontational response.

 

[moXJO]

Correct in Rand's point, but under the rules/definitions set out by the US specifically for gain of function research, what was carried out by Shi in Wuhan transfer and not gain.
Rand not only didn't understand the "rules", his question lacked the technical phrasing necessary to elicit a less confrontational response.

I think it was just a point scoring effort on rands part. Although dig a bit deeper and I'm sure there's a story out of wuhan. The period between 2013ish- 2020 seemed like they were taking risks.

 

[bellenuit]

If you never thought that Google had a vested interest in vaccines and would censor CoVid debate...

....In the video above, German attorney and co-founder of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss1),2,3 Dr. Reiner Fuellmich,4 interviews Whitney Webb, an independent investigative reporter, about who’s really behind YouTube’s censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

He recounts how a medical doctor who after a great deal of trouble managed to get a risk-benefit analysis of mask mandates published in the Journal of Pediatrics. He created a short video about his findings, and within minutes of posting it to YouTube, the video was removed. What is actually going on here? Who is behind the censoring of peer-reviewed science? Who is trying to influence what?

Google Is Invested in the COVID ‘Vaccine’​

As noted by Webb, YouTube’s parent company, Google, is directly invested in the AstraZeneca/Oxford COVID “vaccine.” While the AstraZeneca jab has been framed as a not-for-profit product, this is far from true. The developers of this gene modification tool are Adrian Hill and Sarah Gilbert with the Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research.

While the Jenner Institute is the official developer of the shot, the actual patents and royalty rights for the AstraZeneca shot are held by a private company called Vaccitech, which was founded by Hill and Gilbert. Vaccitech’s investors include:5,6,7,8

• Google Ventures
• The Welcome Trust, which has longstanding links to the eugenics movement
• The British government
• BRAAVOS, a capital investment company set up by a Deutsche Bank executive. BRAAVO’s investment is partially hidden, as BRAAVO is the main shareholder of Oxford Science Innovation, which in turn is invested in Vaccitech
• Chinese interests, including a Chinese bank branch and a drug company called Fosun Pharma

All of these investors stand to profit from this “vaccine” at some point in the near future, and Vaccitech has been quite open about the future profit potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 shot will most likely become an annual vaccine that is updated each season much like the seasonal flu vaccine.

Sure, AstraZeneca promised it would not make any profit from this COVID-19 vaccine, but there’s a time limit on this pledge. The not-for-profit vow expires once the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself can decide when that is.

Google Is Protecting Its Financial Stakes​

Since Google has a direct financial interest in AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 “vaccine,” is it any wonder that its subsidiaries, like YouTube, are censoring information that threatens the future profitability of these products? I would think not.

More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.....

The above was clipped from this article

Could Medical Researchers Be the Next Target of Censorship?

In this video, a German attorney interviews an independent investigative reporter about the censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

articles.mercola.com

What percentage of Google's profit is likely to come from their investment in companies that develop COVID vaccines? If you can't answer that, then stop make insinuations that YouTube are banning videos based on profit motivations. The reason is they are obligated to remove harmful misleading information concerning COVID. As for your officious sounding German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, they are well known for their ridiculous take on COVID. Tell India and Indonesia about their engineering of the appearance of a dangerous pandemic.

 

[mullokintyre]

Hopefully Rederob will provide some expert data analysis on what this graph is telling us.

 

[rederob]

View attachment 127727
Hopefully Rederob will provide some expert data analysis on what this graph is telling us.

Counterintuitively, as the virulent Delta variant is still circulating in Israel's population, the maths relating to a higher vaccination rate leads to higher numbers of breakthrough infections, because the overall number of vaccinated people has gone up.

 

[wayneL]

View attachment 127727
....what this graph is telling us.

Super interesting, thanks. That is pretty congruent with what I am seeing in the stats of other countries.

 

[basilio]

More broadly, Silicon Valley has been pushing to transform the health care system as a whole into a system based on telemedicine and artificial intelligence (AI). Essentially, they’re looking to replace doctors with AI-driven apps and the like.....

The above was clipped from this article

Could Medical Researchers Be the Next Target of Censorship?

In this video, a German attorney interviews an independent investigative reporter about the censorship of medical researchers and their published works.

articles.mercola.com

Indeed. And what a surprise on the source. Another Mercola merde. One of the dozen main websites cited as the source of the lies and misinformation circulated on the web.

How serious is COVID particularly the latest Delta variant ? What impact is it having around the world ? What would Australia face with a critically low vaccination rate if it got out of hand here ? These are the current real world situations.

'No-one was listening': How did Indonesia's COVID-19 crisis get this bad?

Indonesia is the new epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic, overtaking India despite only having a fraction of the population.

www.abc.net.au

India's coronavirus deaths could be in the millions, report says

Researchers say the death toll could be 10 times more than the official count, with estimates that millions of people could have died from COVID-19.

www.abc.net.au

Covid-19: India excess deaths cross four million, says study

Excess deaths - those above expected levels - are a measure of the overall impact of the pandemic.

www.bbc.com

 

[pozindustrial]

I think mainstream media treat us like mushrooms. Keep us in the dark and feed us B/S.
Believing them is like believing in fairies.

 

[moXJO]

a person over 60 had a one-in-200 chance of dying if they caught covid 19 and that was one-in-500 for those over 50.

"If you have the vaccine, you have a one in two million chance of actually dying"

Now if hospitals are still filling with vaccinated people that makes things worse.
If hospitals fill, deaths will occur.

I'm not keen getting a shot of this sht. But working off the numbers, deaths will occur to members or members family if we do lose control. Which I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I do question the data a lot. But at this time I recommend to vaccinate off the data I've read.

 

[wayneL]

Meanwhile, in Sweden.

 

[rederob]

opefully Rederob will provide some expert data analysis on what this graph is telling us.

My earlier response was probably too brief so I will provide an illustrative example (and hope I get the decimal points in the right place).
The maths is based on breakthrough infections (ie. fully vaccinated people who get the virus), and for convenience I will assume an Israeli population of 10M (actually about 9M).

Example based on 10% vaccinated
Let's this week expose 1% to the Delta variant - which is 100k exposures - and assume 10% are vaccinated, while all unvaccinated get the virus.
So that's 90k infected from the unvaccinated group.
Let's assume 99% of the vaccinated group don't get infected, which gives us a 1% breakthrough rate.
So that's 10k vaccinated people times 1% breakthrough infections: 10k x 0.01 = 100 breakthrough infections

Example based on 90% vaccinated
Let's use the same assumptions as above, but now work on a 90% vaccination rate.
For the same 100k exposed people this time the unvaccinated only account for 10% or 10k infections (which is 80k less than the previous example).
Of the 100k exposed we have 90% vaccinated, which is 90k vaccinated exposures.
As the vaccine still prevents 99% of infections our breakthrough infections would be 90k x 0.01 = 900 breakthrough infections.

Thus, increasing numbers of breakthrough infections does not necessarily mean the vaccines are working less well, it might just mean that more people are getting exposed to the virus.

Interestingly, had I used 15% unvaccinated and 85% vaccinated, which is very close to percentages in the Israeli numbers posted by @mullokintyre, I would have got almost identical proportions. Instead I got 11% unvaccinated to vaccinated in my example versus 17% from the Israeli table.

 

[basilio]

Situation in NSW looking very difficult. No reasonable way of seeing the lockdown lifted for months - or until vaccinations reach probably 80% of the population. This analysis is troubling.

And if COVID does breakthrough NSW it will not stop at the Victorian Queensland or SA border will it ?

Mass vaccination with Astro Zenneca - Very, very quickly. Pfizer can follow up.

NSW Covid outbreak: there are hints of what’s to come, and it doesn’t look good

As the strategy to quash the virus flounders, premier Gladys Berejiklian and chief health officer Kerry Chant pin their hopes on vaccines

www.theguardian.com